The Dissertation Committee for Cary E. Sockwell Curtiss Certifies that this is the approved version of the following Dissertation:

God, Fate, and Enemies of Reason: The Self Respect Movement in South India

Committee:

Martha A. Selby, Supervisor

Lisa Mitchell

Sumit Guha

Donald R. Davis Jr.

Oliver Freiberger

God, Fate, and Enemies of Reason: The Self Respect Movement in South India

by

Cary E. Sockwell Curtiss

Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

The University of Texas at Austin May 2020 Dedication

For my family, who share their love and support so fully. Acknowledgements

It is overwhelming to attempt to put in to words how deeply others have been a part of this process. I want to begin by thanking my graduate school community. My experience at the University of Texas at Austin was tremendous, and this is largely due to the exceptional people with whom I was surrounded. My fellow graduate students played a major role in my academic development. I thank all of them, and especially want to name Amber Abbas and Dean Accardi for many, many conversations which pushed me and furthered my interaction with my studies. Additionally, friends outside of my specific academic context played critical roles in helping me relate my academic pursuits to wider contexts, and in providing friendship, fellowship, and support. Many friends have meant so much to this journey through various roles such as our regular dinner group, to starting new phases for our families together, to showing up and seeing me through some of the toughest times I have had. In these contexts, I want to especially thank both Amber and Dean mentioned above, and also Robyn Heeks and Erin Gentry. The second group of people who have been generous and formative to this process are the faculty with whom I studied at the University of Texas at Austin – and also those with whom I studied earlier in life. I want to start by thanking, wholeheartedly, my Ph.D. advisor Martha Selby. Martha has been supportive beyond what I could ever have expected. She has read this dissertation more times than I would wish on anyone! I cannot say enough as to how important she has been to this process. I would not have managed to see this through if it were not for her. At the University of Texas at Austin, I also benefited and grew due to opportunities to study with Gail Minault, Sankaran Radhakrishnan, Janice Leoshko, Thomas Tweed, Wm. Roger Louis, Antony Hopkins,

iv Kamala Visweswaran, and Syed Akbar Hyder, among others. Additionally, I am grateful for Jennifer Tipton's repeated help navigating processes at the University of Texas. I came to the University of Texas at Austin with so much to learn, and I am incredibly grateful for the opportunity. I would also like to thank other professors and teachers I have had, especially Bill Helf, Kelly Dean Jolley, Mary Cameron, Kelly Alley, and Jody Graham. All of these teachers have been part of my love of learning, and that is a gift I carry always. Finally, I want to close by thanking my family. I am thankful to extended family such as Peggy Sockwell, Louise Stump, and Ashley Curtiss; they have been there for me so many times. For the past twenty-five years, Susan Cloud has been my almost-family, and I am immensely grateful to have her friendship to lean on. My parents Anne and Sam had a marathon dissertation-reading weekend with me, and provided me so much helpful and thoughtful feedback. Alongside them, my sisters Emily and Rebecca, and their families, have given me endless encouragement, patience, support, and love. I would not be here without my family. My deepest heartfelt thank you goes to my son Jackson and my partner Matthew; they are the two who got me to the finish line, day by day. Jackson, through his easygoing nature, has been consistently supportive and a constant source of joy and humor. Matthew has believed in me so fully, and has given me much-needed perspective in addition to unquestioning energy and help. From the moment Matthew said “What do we need to do to make this happen?” we three did it, together.

v Abstract

God, Fate, and Enemies of Reason: The Self Respect Movement in South India

Cary E. Sockwell Curtiss, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2020

Supervisor: Martha A. Selby

With this dissertation, I investigate the question of how the Self Respect Movement, with its rejection of religion and seeming promotion of atheism, fit into the religious landscape of India in the early twentieth century. I argue that history has failed to appreciate the non-religious dynamics of this movement and the complex role of non- religion in India. South Indian social identities went through many changes in the early twentieth century and are commonly explored through influences such as caste, regionalism, language, politics, religion, and gender. This dissertation calls attention to the lack of study of non-religion, which I consider here as a field of tangible and specific phenomena. I begin by reviewing the conceptual framework for the study of non-religion, followed by historiographical approaches to the study of Indian history and nationalism. This provides context for a discussion of the political reform milieu in which the Self Respect Movement arose. I also review the historiography of the study of religion, secularism, and rationalism as a foundation for the study to follow. I turn to individuals’ published writings in varieties of early twentieth century south Indian journals to

vi investigate the ways that individual authors champion reason and critique the religious culture around them. Considering perspectives that non-religion offers as alternatives to religious lifestyles offers a richer, more contextualized approach to evaluating the status of religion in India, both historically and into the current day. Here, I show that the Self Respect Movement contributed to identity formation through the exposition of specific values and establishment of new normative practices. I argue that to consider the non- religious aspects of the Self Respect Movement as merely reactionary, inflammatory, or as derivative of western Enlightenment values is reductive and misses the compelling meaning and formative nature that non-religion played for its members.

vii Table of Contents

Chapter 1: ““Every Human Being is Rational” An introduction to Non-Religion and Early Twentieth Century South India ...... 1

Constitutive Boundaries, Aims, and Organization ...... 2

Conceptual Non-Religion ...... 6

Historiographical Contextualization ...... 9

Nationalism ...... 12

Religion in India, Historically ...... 15

Caste ...... 22

History and Caste ...... 23

Caste in South India ...... 27

Nationalism and Language on Center Stage ...... 30

India, Language, and Historical Context ...... 33

South Indian Tamil Language Context ...... 34

Differences between Tamil and Telugu Speaking Areas ...... 37

Political Changes and the Emergence of the Self Respect Movement ...... 41

Tamil “Nationalism” ...... 46

E.V.R...... 49

Reflections ...... 51

Chapter 2: “Rationalists, Humanists, and Atheists” The Study of Religion and the Emergence of Rationalism ...... 53

The Study of Religion ...... 55

Historical Trajectory of the Study of Religion ...... 55

Contemporary Debate in the Study of Religion...... 58 viii Secularity ...... 60

Historical Development of the Concept of “the Secular” ...... 62

Contemporary Debate over Secularity ...... 66

Historical Emergence of the Term “Rationalism” ...... 70

Atheism and Secularism in India ...... 72

Short History of Atheism in India ...... 73

Secularism in India ...... 77

Chapter 3: “If Religion Destroys the Wisdom in the Society” Individuals’ Experiences of Rationalism and Non-Religion...... 8 0

Contributors: Experiencing Religion ...... 81

Revolt and Religion ...... 82

Reason and Rationalism ...... 82

Interest in the Good for the Many ...... 85

Education to Allay Ignorance ...... 88

History...... 90

Global Awareness ...... 93

Change and Progress ...... 97

Reflections on Revolt ...... 99

Reformers: Considerations of Religion ...... 101

Iyothee Thass ...... 102

Introduction to Iyothee Thass ...... 102

Iyothee Thass and Buddhism ...... 103

Thass and the Purpose of Religion ...... 106

Thass and Revision of Hierarchy ...... 108 ix Ambedkar...... 1 08

Introduction to Ambedkar ...... 108

Ambedkar and Legislation versus Religious Choice ...... 110

Ambedkar’s Critique of Hinduism ...... 111

Ambedkar’s Conception of Religion ...... 114

E.V. Ramasami (E.V.R.)...... 11 6

E.V.R.’s Critique of Religion ...... 117

E.V.R. and Atheism ...... 121

E.V.R.’s Goals ...... 123

Comparison ...... 124

E.V.R.’s Rationalism ...... 126

Conclusion ...... 128

Chapter 4: “When it was at its Radical Best…” Identity Formation in South India in the Early Twentieth Century ...... 131

Caste ...... 132

E.V.R. and Caste ...... 132

Revolt and Caste...... 13 4

Reflections on Caste ...... 140

Language ...... 141

E.V.R. and Language ...... 143

Revolt and Language ...... 148

Reflections on Language ...... 152

Gender ...... 152

Historical and Theoretical Locations ...... 153 x E.V.R., the Self Respect Movement, and Gender ...... 157

Contributors to Puratchi and Kumaran ...... 159

Women’s Voices ...... 160

Self Respect Marriages ...... 169

Reflections ...... 171

Chapter 5: “Can one Legitimately Speak of Religions of the Oppressed?” The role of non-religion in the reform of the Self Respect Movement ...... 174

Retrospectives ...... 175

Revisiting Secularism ...... 175

Revisiting the Emergence of the Concept of Rationalism ...... 178

Revisiting Thass, Ambedkar, and E.V.R...... 180

Identity Formation in Religion, Caste, Language, and Gender ...... 183

Reflections on Self Respecters’ Values ...... 187

Revisiting the Conceptual Category of Non-religion ...... 191

The Role of the Self Respect Movement through the lens of Non-Religion ...... 192

Bibliography ...... 195

xi Chapter 1: “Every Human Being is Rational” An introduction to Non- Religion and Early Twentieth Century South India

Every human being is rational - Man is endowed with reason to think deeply. It is for ascertaining the truth in its proper perspective. As such a man should not degrade himself as a mere animal. He should eschew blind beliefs. Man has involved himself into a number of difficulties by misusing his rationalism. He has created gods to find relief from his vexing problems.1 – E.V.R.

India’s balance of religion and politics has been a rich source of thought and reform as the twentieth century saw India transition from British colony to independent nation. In the process of defining its statehood and national identity, religion and its place in India was an inescapable question. Due to the difficulty of effectively addressing the role of religion for such a vast and varied population, there have been ongoing concerns and struggles, and this has inspired a great deal of scholarship. With this dissertation, I enter into this discussion with a question: How does E.V.R.’s Self Respect Movement, with its rejection of religion and seeming promotion of atheism, fit into the religious landscape of India? I argue that history has failed to appreciate the non-religious dynamics of this movement and the complex role of non- religion in India. South Indian social identities went through many changes in the early twentieth century and are commonly explored through influences such as caste, regionalism, language, politics, religion, and gender. However, the role of non-religion has been overlooked. Considering perspectives of the positive social roles that non- religion offers as an alternative to religious lifestyles offers a richer, more contextualized approach to evaluating the status of religion in India, both historically and into the current day. Here, I show that the Self Respect Movement (�யம�யாைத இய埍க믍)

1 E.V. Ramasami, Collected Works of Periyar E.V.R., Ed. K. Veerasami (Chennai: Periyar Self-respect Propaganda Institution, 2005), 88. 1

contributed to identity formation through the exposition of specific values and establishment of new normative practices, and that these are an example of non-religion found in early twentieth century India. Throughout this dissertation, I examine the confluence of religion, culture, and change in south India in the early twentieth century and ask what the roles of E.V.R. and the Self Respect Movement signify to religious complexities. An emerging approach in the fields of religious, cultural, and sociological studies calls attention to the lack of study of non-religion, while framing new, productive perspectives of non-religion as a field of tangible and specific phenomena. The past decade has seen the formation and growth of the Nonreligion and Secularity Research Network (founded in 2008) and the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture (established in 2005), to name two examples of this trend. The work of these groups and other authors draws awareness to an entire category of alternative relationships to religion or religious perspectives. These alternatives have not commonly been studied, and when they have, it has been in a generalized, non-specific way that provides minimal distinction between various types of non-belief.2

CONSTITUTIVE BOUNDARIES, AIMS, AND ORGANIZATION

There are a number of constitutive boundaries I will mention in order to situate this dissertation in the academic field. First, this dissertation lies at the intersection of history, cultural anthropology, and religious studies. These fields are often interrelated, and I fully embrace an interdisciplinary approach. Methodologically, the core of this dissertation relies on close readings of primary sources primarily from the 1920’s through

2 There is one exception to this: Johannes Quack has published a number of works that, at their center, focus on the question of non-religion in India. I introduce his work in Chapter two. He focuses on current, ethnographic research. 2

1940’s in order to compare how individuals thought about religion or its alternatives in India at that time.3 Another point to note is that this dissertation relies exclusively on English language sources. Indians were writing and publishing in English in India during this time frame, so there are many primary sources originally written in English. In other instances, I have relied on translations of Tamil sources. Although this project is therefore only one piece of the picture,4 it aims to provide insight into new ways of thinking about alternatives to religion in India.

To explore the Self Respect Movement and non-religion, this dissertation is organized as follows. This introductory chapter serves three roles: first, I provide an introduction to the conceptual framework of the study of non-religion. This conceptual framework is not contextually connected to any time or place in particular. Rather, it is theoretical and open-ended, and it relies on meta-language to define non-religion. This framework guides my argument about the missing component of non-religion in histories of India. Second, I review historiographical approaches to the study of Indian history and nationalism. I discuss the role of “history” along with perspective on nationalism both for India as a whole, and for the south Indian context specifically. Third, I present a brief outline of the political reform milieu in which the Self Respect Movement arose. I describe the rise of the Self Respect Movement along with the role of E.V.R. The Self Respect Movement’s focuses included social reform through radical approaches to cultural questions of gender, language, and caste. The purpose of all of the topics covered

3 The reason for these dates for the focus of this research is due to my focus on the Self Respect Movement. The Self Respect Movement was begun in 1925 and its original focuses began ebbing as independence loomed in the mid-1940’s. 4 Any project that utilizes published pieces in journals, whether English-language or in vernaculars, is limiting itself to perspectives of educated people, although levels of education may be assumed to be higher for those writing in a foreign (to themselves) language. This is a pervasive commonality within historical research. 3

in the introduction is to introduce broad theoretical and historical contexts – conceptual non-religion and the context for reform in early twentieth century India – into which the rest of this dissertation will delve. Chapter two reviews the historiography of how religion has been studied over time, and then turns to the historical development of the idea of the secular. These discussions lay the foundation for the examination of the adoption of the term “rationalism” to describe the adoption of a combination of morality, reason, and science.

This use of the term “rationalism” originated in England, but it eventually became a badge of the Self Respect Movement in India. Accordingly, the discussion shifts to the Indian context and begins by exploring the intent of the government’s adoption of a secularist approach in India. Ultimately, this chapter lays the foundations for the question of how rationalism was perceived in India and how it has been studied. Chapter three considers individuals' responses to the cultural and religious milieu in south India in the early twentieth century. There are two primary sections in this chapter. The first section of this chapter turns to the writings of a wide variety of individuals who wrote articles published in the Self Respect journal Revolt between 1928-1930. Directly viewing authors’ perceptions of religion through their own words allows themes from articles in these journals to emerge. The second section examines responses of reformers to this context. The three reformers I discuss are Iyothee Thass, B.R. Ambedkar, and E.V.R. Each reformer is discussed in terms of their specific backgrounds, what critique of religion they formulated, and what conclusions they came to in their own religious paths. Ultimately, my intention here is, through comparison, to focus on an exploration of E.V.R.’s particular approach to reform and, specifically, his

4

conception of “rationalism”. Ultimately, I investigate the ways that individual authors champion reason and critique the religious culture around them. Chapter four investigates three reform areas through which the Self Respect Movement campaigned for change during the early twentieth century. I present discussions regarding caste, language, and gender in the period leading up to and culminating in the nationalist movement in India. In each of these areas, contributors to Self Respect Movement journals wrote about experiences and suggested ways to effect change. Their suggestions are considered here as positions, perspectives, and practices that contribute to cohesiveness and community supporting what I am calling a culture of non-religion. In the conclusion, I reflect on the roles that various cultural components play in the development of identity in early twentieth century south India. I review the roles of caste, gender, language, and religion in the nationalist period. I argue that, in contrast to these influences, there is an absence of the role of non-religion in the history of modern south India in historical literature, although there is evidence supporting the consideration of the Self Respect Movement as an example of non-religion. Reconceived specific terms allow for a discussion of non-religion in the context of the history of secularism in India, the perceived promotion of atheism by E.V.R., and the role of the Self Respect Movement. This discussion is limited in its depth. I cover a wide range of topics, most of which have a huge body of literature behind them. I necessarily summarize wide bodies of research into overviews of these fields, and while I do my best to present relevant theories and insights, I regret the number that I could not fit into this work. The key research for this dissertation – the focus on individuals’ voices from the early twentieth

5

century – has been a pleasure with which to engage. I assert that we can learn about the complexities of religion (and non-religion) in south India by listening directly, as much as possible, to what individuals said in their own words. Whether these individuals were reformers with a wide audience, such as Thass, Ambedkar, and E.V.R., or whether these individuals were lesser-known but were publishing articles in weekly periodicals, my goal is to consider what they have to say and to facilitate their contributions in joining the conversation.

CONCEPTUAL NON-RELIGION

A key idea on which I focus throughout this dissertation is “non-religion.” The details about how I understand non-religion, and where I learned about this approach, follow. Before I begin, however, I want to mention that I use non-religion as an analytic term, or as a form of metalanguage. This is not a term that the individuals from south India whose written words I bring together would have been familiar with, especially in the specific way I use it. I navigate between attempting to understand historical individuals perspectives, and bringing current academic perspectives to bear on them. Additionally, the term non-religion lies in relation to religion, as we will see. It may be useful for me to lay out my own definition of religion. Therefore, for the purposes of this dissertation, I define religion as worldviews that include outlooks, beliefs, and/or practices, both individual and collective, that orient meaning beyond the physical world. The topic of non-religion lies, contextually, among terms that have too often been used in non-specific ways, such as atheism, secularism, non-theism, freethought, humanism, irreligion, and so on. In 2015, Lois Lee authored Recognizing the Non-

6

Religious,5 a work that provides a deep investigation of terms and intentions in discussions of alternatives to religion. Her book has two focuses: first, she deliberately parses these terms and suggests clarifications of terminology, and second, she posits that there is an unexplored field of tangible social practices and effects of non-religion. She suggests that various categories of non-belief are important to study because they play many roles for people both internally and in culturally significant ways. Lee’s work is important and helpful to this study, which will rely on the framework she prescribes. First I will elucidate her approach to secularity, and follow this with separating out the concept of non-religion. Lee first summarizes the typical approach to secularity as equivocating between two distinct types: “secularity as a relative disengagement from religious culture and authority; and secularity as a potentially powerful but dissenting form of engagement with religion.”6 These two descriptions are recognizable phenomena that are clearly different from each other. Lee defines “secularity” in a very specific sense: as any approach in which religion is a subordinate authority or concern. She elucidates, “‘secularity’… is a concept that describes, specifically, any situation in which religious authorities and concerns—and, significantly, …alternatively spiritual and non-religious ones too—are subordinate to other powers and interests, though they may still be important secondary considerations.”7 Lee points out that secularity is often discussed in terms of what people believe, and she suggests this should change. Other terms may be used to specify peoples' relationship to theistic approaches or beliefs, and those can (and should) be separated from questions about secularity. In other words, Lee encourages the separation of

5 Lois Lee, Recognizing the Non-Religious: Reimagining the Secular (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). 6 Lee, Recognizing the Non-Religious, 21 7 Ibid., 14-15. 7

questions about what religion entails and how theism is conceptualized for an individual or a society, from questions about secularity or whether religion is a primary or secondary concern. Separating secularity from non-religion allows the category of non-religion to be developed. Lee defines non-religion as “a set of social and cultural forms and experiences that are alternative to religion and framed as such,”8 or, in another description, “Non- religion is therefore any phenomenon—position, perspective, or practice—that is

primarily understood in relation to religion but which is not itself considered to be religious.”9 The umbrella concept of the non-religious is important to Lee in a variety of ways. She argues consistently that the non-religious can be concrete phenomena (rather than a category that is defined by the absence of something). Non-religion can encompass either positive or negative responses to religion by anyone who sees themselves outside of religion. Approaches that fall under the umbrella of non-religion range from anti- religion (an antagonistic, active rejection of religion) to atheism (an awareness of absence of experience of god/s) or irreligion (a passive unawareness of religious perspectives), along with many others. Lee points out that atheism, non-religion, and secularity have each been treated as if they are in binary relationships with religion, and they have often been assumed to be insubstantial or residual categories. Lee provides a foundational series of suggestions about developing clarity in conceptualizing their differences. She goes on to research non-religion as a manifest phenomenon that plays observable roles in individual and cultural contexts. She points out that “secular modernity is often associated with social fragmentation. One way of testing this proposition is to investigate

8 Lee, Recognizing the Non-Religious, 13. 9 Ibid., 32. 8

the extent to which non-religious cultural forms are community-building or tend towards individualism.”10 Lee’s description of the non-religious is persuasive because it allows for these perspectives to be studied and seen as significant and legitimate. Her descriptions of nuances of difference are substantive and helpful. In this study of the Self Respect Movement, where the goal is to understand its role in individuals’ lives and its cultural significance, the role of non-religion is a key concept. I will eventually apply some of

Lee’s specificity of terms to discuss non-religion in this context. Categories such as “atheism” or “secularity” have a different sense and context in India, certainly in the early twentieth century, but also in the twenty-first century, due to historical developments. Lee provides her thorough discussion surrounding terms and delineating them precisely because they have been historically confounded. Her framework allows these to be considered with increased clarity, allowing a depth of analysis of the role of non-religion.

HISTORIOGRAPHICAL CONTEXTUALIZATION

In this section, I will discuss some theoretical contributions to the study of history that provide important perspectives. India as a whole was undergoing vast changes in the early twentieth century as the British empire’s power in India began to shrink and as Indian cultural consciousness began shifting toward independence. Nationalism was rising in India, although in particularly multi-faceted and complex ways. Factors contributing to change included: the development of print culture and increasing spread of information around the world, changing political realities in other global contexts, the growth in significance of historical knowledge that contributed in part to the growth of

10 Lee, Recognizing the Non-Religious, 66. 9

regional identities, changing expectations related to gender and its cultural representations, and a culturally-introspective focus on the role of caste in India. Post-colonial India has inspired a great deal of theorizing and exploring the effects of colonialism. No academic discussion of culture in India can escape awareness of Edward Said’s Orientalism.11 Said’s basic assertion is that cultures and histories cannot seriously be understood or studied without their configurations of power also being studied.12 More specifically, he makes a persuasive argument tracing the

ideological construction of the categories “orient” and “occident”, the values that came to be assigned to each of these categories, and the effects this process continues to have on modern perceptions of the world. Said’s assertions pervade modern scholarship, regardless of whether they are accepted or rejected. One important point about his theory, and the theories influenced by him, is in the ways they reflect upon the position of the scholar and the power dynamics inherent in attempting to understand and explain people’s influences and motivations. Exploring the ways that colonization affected Indians’ lives across India during British rule necessitates an historical approach; however, it is important to stay aware of the role of this framework for inquiry. Dipesh Chakrabarty asks, “Why should children all over the world today have to come to terms with a subject called ‘history’ when we know that this compulsion is neither natural nor ancient? It does not take much imagination to see that the reason for this lies in what European imperialism and third- world nationalisms have achieved together: the universalization of the nation state as the most desirable form of political community.”13 This imposition to the subjecthood of

11 Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1978). 12 Ibid., 23. 13 Dipesh Chakrabarty, "Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History: Who Speaks for ‘Indian’ Pasts?" in Contemporary Postcolonial Theory: A Reader, Ed. Padmini Mongia (London: Arnold, 1996), 240. 10

people who may have held what Chakrabarty describes as “an antihistorical consciousness; that is, they entail subject positions and configurations of memory that challenge and undermine the subject that speaks in the name of history,”14 is pervasive. Chakrabarty reminds us of the connection between imperialism and nationalism in people’s respective attempts at universalizing their messages or worldviews through acceptance of the nation-state as a basis for identity and organization or through a search for legitimacy.

In a related, though ultimately even more powerful reflection on the reach of colonization, Ashis Nandy writes:

This colonization colonizes minds in addition to bodies and it releases forces within the colonized societies to alter their cultural priorities once and for all. In the process, it helps generalize the concept of the modern West from a geographical and temporal entity to a psychological category. The West is now everywhere, within the West and outside; in structures and in minds. This is primarily the story of the second colonization and resistances to it. … At one time, the second colonization legitimized the first. Now, it is independent of its roots. Even those who battle the first colonialism often guiltily embrace the second.15 The pervasiveness of Nandy’s “second colonization” staggers the mind. In this post- colonial world, I find regular evidence of glorification of “Westernization” (read: modernization); his observations ring unfortunately true. Nandy goes on to discuss the dialogical nature of the Indian colonial encounter and the status of every participant as simultaneous oppressor and oppressed – no matter which “side” is represented in the narrative. I keep this dialogical nature in mind in studying India’s colonial encounter.

14 Chakrabarty, "Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History,” 132. 15 Ashis Nandy, The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), xi. 11

Nationalism

In 1983, Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities posited nations as imagined communities. As he explains, nations are imagined, “because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.”16 Anderson’s formulation, which implicitly points to an abstract basis for conceptions of the nation, has been extremely influential; he is quoted regularly in discussions of nationalism and nations.

The “imaginings” of nations began in the eighteenth century during the Enlightenment. An early historian of nationalism, Carlton Hayes, wrote, “In the eighteenth century, rather suddenly, emerged a philosophy of nationalism. It emerged in the midst of dynastic and colonial wars and of the popular unrest occasioned by them. … It promised a way of escape from the crazy evils of the time to a logical millennium of

the near future.”17 Hayes goes on to discuss some ideas that were central to the development of the concept of the nation: the idea of the “brotherhood of man”; the idea that all people have the right to political self-determination; a valorization of rationalism, and a corresponding rejection of romanticism. These developments can be seen to peak in the French Revolution with the abrupt dissolution of authority based on dynastic and class bonds, and explicit formulations of nationhood based on liberty, equality, and fraternity. Hayes typifies a particular approach to the study of nationalism: one that sees the emergence of nationalism as a natural and concrete process. Many refer to this sort of

16 Benedict R. O'G. Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. (New York: Verso, 1991), 15. 17 Carlton Joseph Huntley Hayes, The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (New York: R.R. Smith, Inc., 1931), 13. 12

view as “classical modernism.”18 A modern historian of nationalism, Anthony Smith, writes, “The object of their detailed investigations was the rise and course of the nationalist ideology and its varieties; the hallmark of their studies was a sustained attempt at dispassionate analysis of the ideology.”19 Early theorists like Hayes tended to start their analyses of how nations emerged by suggesting analogies with tribes. Hayes posits tribes as the earliest autonomous groups; this viewpoint accepts ethnic ties as a basis for early social organization. This foregrounds the current debate on “civic” versus “ethnic” nations.20 Classical modernism held sway until the period of decolonization in the mid- to late-twentieth century. The initial reaction to these independence movements assumed infeasibility based on racism and prejudice. It was thought that colonized people “couldn’t” govern themselves.21 As decolonization began and accelerated through the middle of the twentieth century, previous conceptions of nations and nationalism began to be questioned. Anthony Smith notes, “It was not until the 1970s and 1980s that there emerged a series of critiques which have called into question the basic assumptions of that paradigm, and with it the model of nation-building; critiques which on the one hand have revealed the nation as an invented, imagined and hybrid category, and on the other hand as modern versions of far older and more basic social and cultural communities.”22

18 See, for instance: A.D. Smith, Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and Nationalisms (London: Routledge, 1998). 19 Ibid., 16. 20 See, for instance, Philip L. White, “Globalization and the Mythology of the ‘Nation State’,” in Global History: Interactions between the Universal and the Local, ed. A.G. Hopkins (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). 21 For example, at the Simla Conference in India in 1945 when the British government sent representatives to meet with leaders representing a variety of India’s political interests, the Viceroy Lord Wavell wrote in his journal, “The level of discussion was not high, and I was rather appalled at the quality round the table.” See Penderel Moon, ed., Wavell: The Viceroy’s Journal (London: Oxford University Press, 1973), 147. 22 Smith, Nationalism and Modernism, 4. 13

One reason why Imagined Communities was so influential is that it is an accessible, and even aesthetically pleasing, formulation of the unification of peoples under an umbrella-identity – one which provides a sense of belonging and self-defined recognition. Anderson also compellingly explains the mechanics of the definition of national identity through exploring the role of print-capitalism in the spread of identity. This identity-formation is furthered by its emergence at the same time that religious monopolies in Europe were lessening. One aspect of this movement was a vernacularization of religious texts. The decline of religious “truth languages” allowed authority to be invested in common languages. The emergence of the novel, which fused fictional (universal) time with real (linear) time, and newspapers, which juxtaposed readers and events in newly fluid ways, contributed to a new “horizontal” awareness of community. The story of the development of nationalism in India, ending in India’s independence from British rule, can be read through Anderson’s formulation. Despite the unifying and defining moments that can be seen in the establishment of print in south India and the corresponding spread of historical narrative, theorists following Anderson question some of his formulations. Partha Chatterjee, for instance, protests Anderson’s postulation of Europe and the Americas as the birthplaces of nationalism. Chatterjee points out that Anderson does not leave space for different articulations of nationalism. Chatterjee describes, from the perspective of one who lives in a formerly-colonized country, “Europe and the Americas, the only true subjects of history, have thought out on our behalf not only the script of colonial enlightenment and exploitation, but also that of our anticolonial resistance and postcolonial misery. Even our imaginations must remain forever colonized.”23 The evidence on which Chatterjee relies

23 Partha Chatterjee, “Whose Imagined Community?,” in The Nation and Its Fragments (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 5. 14

for his conclusions are the differences exhibited by modern societies outside of Europe and the Americas. In India’s case, Chatterjee claims that nationalism separated the material, political, and “outer” realm from the spiritual, “inner”, and “essential” realm. He notes that the contest for power in the colonial state reflects a struggle in the political and material realm. What a consideration of nationalism as a political process misses is the insistence on autonomy and difference in India’s “inner” realms: the spiritual; the family; the literary and artistic, for instance.

Religion in India, Historically

Describing the religious milieu on the Indian subcontinent is a daunting task, for it is a vast topic. To begin: India is a country with a large, diverse population, and there is huge religious diversity represented. At the turn of the twenty-first century, the Census of India counted 80% of India’s population as Hindu, 13% as Muslim, 2% each as Christian and Sikh, and less than 1% each Buddhist, Jain, Other, and Religion Not Stated.24 On the surface, those numbers may give the appearance that Indian is simply an overwhelmingly Hindu country, with a handful of other religions present. However, along with questions that accompany any large data collection about what definitions are used in the collection of data and what processes are used to collect it, India also has a long history of particular political and cultural attention to religion that has affected religion on the subcontinent. This section presents an overview of the relationships between religions on the subcontinent from the Mughal period through the early twentieth century. The Mughal period in India varied greatly in how religion was approached, and ranged from the specifically pluralist approach of Akbar to the repressive reign of Aurangzeb.25 The

24 Indian Census Data from 2001 census: http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_And_You/religion.aspx 25 Doniger, The Hindus: An Alternative History, 531-9, and Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf, A Concise History of India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 26-7. 15

degree of tolerance varied as Muslims and non-Muslims coexisted throughout this time. Conversions occurred, but they were the exception rather than the rule. As Wendy Doniger explains, “We can say that throughout the Mughal period, official conversions of Hindus to Islam were rare; non-Muslims were not obliged to convert to Islam on entering the Mughal ruling class, and the Mughals generally regarded Islam as their particular cultural heritage and did not encourage conversion to Islam among the general population.”26

As the British began increasing their presence and influence in India through the East India Company, they initially adopted a position of neutrality in regards to religion. After all, at the beginning, the British presence in India was focused on trade. However, when it was time for the East India Company’s charter to be renegotiated in 1813, Parliament was asked to decide whether there ought to be a duty to promote Christianity. This sparked off intense debates which also brought heightened attention to this question. As Penelope Carson points out, “Issues of toleration, liberty and equality were at the heart of this discussion.”27 In the end, the new charter included a requirement for the East India Company “to provide for the ‘religious and moral improvement’ of its subjects.”28 In the two decades following the new requirement of the East India Company to provide religious and moral improvement to its subjects, many organizations emerged in India to resist new pressures brought by Christian missionaries.29 There was increasing

26 Donger, The Hindus: An Alternative History, 546. Barbara and Thomas Metcalf agree, noting that loyalty, rather than a particular religion, was the precondition to participation in the ruling regimes. Metcalf and Metcalf, Concise History of India, 27. 27 Penelope Carson, The East India Company and Religion 1698 – 1858 (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2012), 3. This entire book explores the lead up to this debate and the immediate after-effects. 28 Ibid. 29 Peter Van der Veer discusses this phenomenon in the south Indian context in Imperial Encounters: Religion and Modernity in Indian and Britain (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 21. 16

suspicion in India that the British intended to convert them forcefully.30 As the role and responsibilities of the British in India grew, they found themselves struggling to find the right balance between non-interference and intervention in response to heightened responsibility. Accordingly, in 1817, in an attempt to reassure Hindus31 that the British did not intend to devalue Hindu holdings or traditions, the Madras Board of Revenue (under the East India Company) took direct responsibility for administering and maintaining landed endowments and Hindu temples.32 This alarmed British evangelical

Christians, who feared that this signified support or approval of “heathenism.” And yet, furthering the trend of increasing British focus on “improvement” of India, 1829 and 1830 saw the official abolishment of legal practicing of sati. This contributed further to Indians’ suspicion that the British government was inappropriately interfering in their religions.33 The British Empire was pressured to improve the lives of Indian women by missionaries, Indian political and social organizations, British feminist groups, and international opinion. Antoinette Burton points out British feminists’ substantial interest in the progression of Indian women’s rights. Even in the late nineteenth century, British feminists felt compelled to further Indian women’s interests because of a perception of

30 Carson, The East India Company and Religion, 4. 31 The category of “Hindu” religion, it must be noted, is acknowledged as somewhat problematic. Although this term dates back to 515 BCE, it was the Persian name for people who lived around the Indus River. See Asko Parpola, The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 3. Accordingly, the word described a regional or ethnic identity. There was no unified or comprehensive conception of a “Hindu” religion in medieval India. See Andrew J. Nicholson, Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010), 201. Although the British inaccurately applied this term to various religious practices and beliefs that they found on the subcontinent, it has now been accepted and has taken on a life of its own. See also Metcalf, Ideologies of the Raj, 10. 32 Carson, The East India Company and Religion, 165. 33 n. See also Metcalf, Ideologies of the Raj, 10. 33 Carson, The East India Company and Religion, 183-5. 17

Indian women’s helplessness. By highlighting and working to change the debased position of Indian women, British women could demonstrate their usefulness to the Empire while also exhibiting British cultural superiority.34 As Spivak powerfully explains, “Between patriarchy and imperialism, subject-constitution and object- formation, the figure of the woman disappears, not into a pristine nothingness, but into a violent shuttling which is the displaced figuration of the ‘third-world woman’ caught between tradition and modernization.”35

A defining event of the mid-nineteenth century in British India was the 1857 revolt. The British supplied its army in India with greased cartridges for new Lee Enfield rifles they were using, and when it was rumored that these were greased with cow and pig fat, Indian soldiers refused to use them. This confrontation reached a peak in May 1857 when the army in Meerut mutinied. This revolt and violence spread to Delhi, Awadh, and central India, along with other pockets of unrest around the country. The disturbances took close to a year to be fully calmed. 36 Many influences led to this uprising, and it had many effects. The uprising was a shock to the British, and in the decades after, resulted in increased fear, racism, and stringent cultural distance and “othering” between the British and the Indian populations.37 As Penelope Carson reminds us, however, “It was clear that whatever the precise motives were behind the actions of those who rebelled, the Indian Uprising of 1857/8 was for many, at least in part, a war of religion. The British similarly regarded their own brutal retaliation as revenge for the slights to Christianity as well as

34 For more on this, see Antoinette M. Burton, Burdens of History: British Feminists, Indian Women, and Imperial Culture, 1865-1915 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1994). 35 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, "Can the Subaltern Speak," in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988), 306. 36 Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy (London: Routledge, 2004), 7. 37 Ibid., 107-11. 18

for the murders of their people. Religious language predominated in the rhetoric of both Britons and Indians.”38 Tensions regarding religious rights, autonomy, and respect were becoming increasingly strained on the subcontinent throughout the first half of the nineteenth century. Following the 1857 revolt, the British changed the way they governed India. On August 2, 1858, the British Parliament passed the Government of India Act. This transferred the authority of the East Indian Company to the British Crown. At this time,

the proclamation also required its representatives “to abstain from interference with Indian religious belief or worship. ‘Due regard’ would be paid to ‘the ancient rights, usages, and customs of India.’”39 Britain found the need to step away as much as they could from religious involvement in India, and this new approach called for delineation between religious and secular spheres. As Thomas Metcalf notes, “Although abandonment of the hoped-for conversion of India undercut much of the logic that sustained liberal reform, still the new policy had room for other enduring liberal ideals. One was religious toleration.”40 Despite Britain’s new resolve to distance itself from religious concerns on the subcontinent, Indians continued to struggle with the relationship between their religious practices and beliefs, their colonial political realities, and the interactions of people of various religions in their diverse society. In response to all of these pressures, the late nineteenth century saw the rise of Indian associations focused on religious revitalization

38 Carson, The East India Company and Religion, 1. 39 Metcalf and Metcalf, Concise History of India, 102-4. Arjun Appadurai also notes that, in Madras, this shift began in 1841 when the Board of Revenue decided to withdraw from “all interference with native religious establishments.” Quoted from the Board of Revenue Consultations found in the Tamil Nadu Archives. In Arjun Appadurai, Worship and Conflict Under Colonial Rule: A South Indian Case (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 157. 40 Thomas R Metcalf, Ideologies of the Raj, in The New Cambridge History of India. Vol. III. ed. Gordon Johnson (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 48. 19

among many religious groups. A common theme among these religious revitalization groups was that Hinduism had become corrupt and degenerate. They often looked to the past for inspiration as they attempted to reinvigorate and reform their religious traditions.41 As Amartya Sen notes, “by the third quarter of the nineteenth century, the fate of socio-religious reform became tied to that of the political.”42 In addition to associations based on religious reform, there were many other types of organizations forming during the late-nineteenth century, also.43 Notably, the Indian National Congress

formed in 1885, and elsewhere in this dissertation, there is also discussion of regional and caste associations. Reform increasingly defined the mood of the time. In response to the growing intertwining of socio-religious reform and political reform by Indians, the British increasingly worked to keep the two separate.44 The British stated goal was tolerance and separation of religion from the political realm; however, this required constant reifying of the difference and separation between the two. Simultaneously, Indians experienced increasing pressure on questions related to religious affiliation. One way that the British intended to keep religion and politics separate was for each religious community to follow its specific religious laws. This required, of course, defining who belonged to which religion. Barbara Metcalf notes, in the

41 Geoff A. Oddie, “Anti-Missionary Feeling and Hindu Revivalism in Madras: The Hindu Preaching and Tract Societies, C. 1886-1891,” in Images of Man: Religion and Historical Process in South Asia, ed. Fred W. Clothey (Madras: New Era Publications, 1982), 218. See also Bernard Cohn, An Anthropologist Among the Historians and Other Essays (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1987), 227-8. 42 Amartya P. Sen, “Introduction” in Social and Religious Reform: The Hindus of British India, ed. Amartya P. Sen (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003), 21. 43 Metcalf and Metcalf, Concise History of India, 137-44. This phenomena and the resulting cultural effects are also discussed in Barbara D. Metcalf, “Imagining Community: Polemical Debates in Colonial India,” in Religious Controversy in British India: Dialogues in South Asian Languages, ed. Kenneth W. Jones (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 229-240, and in D. A. Washbrook, The Emergence of Provincial Politics: The Madras Presidency 1870-1920 (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 261-287. 44 Peter Van der Veer, Imperial Encounters, 16-45. 20

efflorescence of associations and organizations that Indians were forming and joining in this period, “groups came to know not only what they were but what they were not.”45 This identity formation was happening both from within and from without, both by Indians themselves and by the British. One result of this focus on identities and defining populations was a growth of tensions between groups. Indians, increasingly, campaigned for political power and rights. Since the British were in the mode of meting out justice and legal requirements based on religious identities, this same trend was seen as Indians began winning new rights of power and representation. The mid-late nineteenth century is also when the Indian census began, with wide-ranging effects of the resulting focus on enumeration and categorization. Bernard Cohn explains that “Through the asking of questions and the compiling of information in categories which the British rulers could utilize for governing, it provided an arena for Indians to ask questions about themselves.”46 Because representation signified political power, the tension around identities became an increasing factor in reform movements at this time. As Arjun Appadurai notes, “Thus, the counting of bodies that had served the purposes of colonial rule at lower levels in the last half of the nineteenth century turned gradually into the idea of the representation of Indian selves (self-rule) as nationalism became a mass movement.”47 By the early twentieth century, religious identities in India were intertwined with many other concerns and pressures: caste, language, nationalism, regionalism, belief, and representation. This is the milieu into which the following discussion of non-belief in India will return.

45 Metcalf, “Imagining Community,” 235. 46 Cohn, An Anthropologist Among the Historians, 230. 47 Arjun Appadurai, “Number in the Colonial Imagination,” in Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament: Perspectives on South Asia, eds. Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993), 332. 21

CASTE

Caste is one of the paradigmatic tropes through which people outside of India often learn about Indian society, regardless of scholarship showing that a focus on caste is neither indigenous nor universally perceived across the Indian subcontinent. As Susan Bayly concisely summarized: “Caste is not and never has been a fixed fact of Indian life.”48 Caste was, however, a central question that affected how participants related to the nationalist movement. This chapter will explore why caste played such an important role in the development and growth of nationalism, along with related issues of identity

and power in Indian society. Caste played a role both in perceptions and relationships of the colonizers and colonized, and also in perceptions and relationships between Indians themselves. Caste is most commonly understood as some amalgamation of two approaches to social

organization in India: varna (order, class or kind) and jati (birth group).49 After centuries- long development and increasing stratification of Indian society, the nationalist movement in the early twentieth century brought deep cultural confrontations related to caste, identity, power dynamics, and personhood as Indians began to consider how they would define themselves outside of the colonial context. For example, while on one hand there was attention paid to improving caste relations across India during the nationalist movement, on the other hand these relationships held potential for manipulation. Geraldine Forbes unveils the deliberate courting of low caste support by the elite Indian nationalists. As she explains, it was necessary to win low caste support for the nationalist

48 Susan Bayly, Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 25. 49 Bayly, Caste, Society and Politics, 8-10. Diane Mines also explains these two terms through her book, but concisely on p. 15 in Diane Mines, Caste in India (Ann Arbor: Association for Asian Studies, 2009). 22

movement to be successful.50 And yet, there was limited support from the elites for these less-empowered populations. Ranajit Guha would say that this reflects a “second articulation” of colonial dominance; we must recognize “the power exercised by the indigenous elite over the subaltern amongst the subject population itself.”51 Relationships to power differentiated the colonists from the colonized elite in that: the former held power, and the latter anticipated power.52 The role of caste within the Indian nationalist movement was fraught with power dynamics at many levels, and it is difficult to hear voices from all of these levels equally. The dominant narrative about Indian nationalism is rich with imagery of countrywide adoption of Gandhi’s non-cooperation policies. What the experience of the nationalist movement was like, however, on a micro-level, how low-caste or typically unempowered populations perceived all of this, or what effects it had on their daily lives, are all less- commonly heard parts of the story.

History and Caste

There has been a great deal of time spent in academic literature examining the historical development of caste in India in an attempt to understand it. Yet, as Diane Mines notes, “To understand caste historically is to recognize that it has always been a changing reality.”53 In beginning this consideration of the history and development of caste in modern India, I want to keep firmly in mind that caste is, at essence, only one of many systems of social organization. Perceptions and practices of caste vary by location,

50 Geraldine Hancock Forbes, Women in Modern India (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 121. 51 Ranajit Guha, Dominance without Hegemony: History and Power in Colonial India (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997), 100. 52 Ibid. 53 Mines, Caste in India, 2. 23

over time, and from person to person. Any social organizational influence that caste carries is also impacted by (and impacts) many other systems that also affect individual and group identities, including tradition, economies, religions, governments, education, and life cycle rites, among others. Caste is fluid and complex. Caste is not unique to India, but it has played an especially visible role in India’s modern history. Due to this focus on modern history specifically, I will begin this historical overview by considering caste primarily in the later stages of pre-British India.

The period of Mughal empires in India was followed by decentralization of power and the rise of regional kingdoms.54 During this period of fluid political realities there were resulting pressures on the establishment of legitimacy for those vying for power. For the rest of the population, an increase in social stratification both gave a sense of order that was lacking in the surrounding power struggles, but that also presented opportunities to find strength in group identities.55 Additionally, increasing focus on ritual in navigating life stages contributed a sense of clarity and order.56 “Caste” as we tend to think of it now was at a very different stage of development at that time. As British presence and authority in India grew over time, the understanding and practice of caste changed also. As the British worked to understand the vast and diverse cultural landscape of India, they attempted to balance lived experience with research.57

54 Metcalf and Metcalf, Concise History of India, 28-42. For a discussion of changing self-perceptions of the Mughal elite, a shift to a sense of individuality, and its effects, see Catherine B. Asher and Cynthia Talbot, India Before Europe (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 245-248. 55 See Bayly, Caste, Society and Politics, chapter 1, for a good overview of these social developments. K. Nambi Arooran explains that early castes, i.e. occupational guilds that took on a hereditary component, were found in south India as early as the Chola period (9th – 13th century A.D.). K. Nambi Arooran, Tamil Renaissance and Dravidian Nationalism: 1905-1944 (Madurai: Koodal Publishers, 1980), 26-27. This is only one of many, many forms that caste has taken in different times and locations. 56 Bayly, Caste, Society and Politics, Chapter 2. 57 Thomas Metcalf notes that, from John Locke onwards, the British insisted on the value of experiential modes of understanding. Metcalf, Ideologies of the Raj, x. 24

Susan Bayly describes three factors in increasing jati identification in Indian society.58 First, the entrance of British economic pressures into markets in India changed revenue demands on local populations. This was a factor in traders and skilled workers pulling closer to group alignments. Second, as Britain’s economic investments in India grew, they began utilizing militaries for protection and, increasingly, control. As they recruited, they found pre-existing groups that had military traditions and skills, which gave impressions of social categorizations. Third, previously independent realms began

shifting to dependent client kingdoms. As these kingdoms’ military might were subsumed under the British, the kingdoms turned with increasing focus to reliance on ritual authority. Among these three factors contributing to British experience of Indian social stratification in practice, a factor in the formation of castes was a sense of identity and strength that individuals perceived in these communities. Bayly describes individuals as often “vulnerable… who had good reason to become more castelike in the face of an uncertain market and an ever-more intrusive and volatile political order.”59 As British involvement in India deepened and their responsibility grew, many British administrators increasingly came to see themselves as stewards of Indian development.60 In 1772, Warren Hastings suggested “the objective should be to ‘adapt our Regulations to the Manners and Understandings of the People, and the Exigencies of the Country adhering as closely as we are able to their ancient uses and Institutions.’”61 The latter part of this statement, “…adhering as closely as we are able to their ancient uses and Institutions,” demonstrates an ideal that prioritized historical sources of

58 Bayly, Caste, Society and Politics, 80-84. 59 Ibid., 80. 60 Edmund Burke, the Whig statesman and political philosopher, referred to the British as “trustees” for the people of India. Metcalf and Metcalf, Concise History of India, 56. 61 Ibid. For a full discussion of essentializing and orientalist ways that the study of India has displaced Indian agency, see also Ronald Inden, Imagining India (Cambridge, Mass.: Basil Blackwell, Inc., 1990). 25

knowledge that drove British research into India’s history and traditions. By this time Brahmins were, in many geographical areas, known as keepers of ritual knowledge that relied on ancient texts. Accordingly, the British often turned to this group as they sought to learn about India’s history and customs.62 The combination of a preoccupation with India’s history alongside a reliance on a specific portion of the population (the Brahmins) for perspective on Indian society led to a skewing of the understanding the British were attempting to gain about this complex people they were increasingly ruling.

As the British attempted to codify laws that balanced their understanding of Indian traditions alongside their intent to productively benefit India through imperialism, they increasingly defined what they found. Thomas Metcalf explains that, “The Victorians, as children of the Enlightenment, sought rational principles that would provide a comprehensive, and comprehensible, way of fitting everything they saw in the world around them into ordered hierarchies.”63 As historians reflect on this process, it is clear that, often, the British defined various aspects of Indian society in ways that differed from Indians’ understandings or experiences.64 This had lasting impact on Indian society. As Eugene Irshick has noted, the production of knowledge and its impacts are dialogic; “both local people and the British sought to formulate not only ideas about each other but also ideas about each others’ pasts.”65 Indians portrayed themselves to the British, and

62 As Thomas Metcalf explains, “A view of Indian society derived from the study of texts and cooperation with pandits inevitably encouraged the British to view Brahmins as the predominant group in Indian society, and to adopt their perspectives on it.” Metcalf, Ideologies of the Raj, 11. This is also described in Bernard S. Cohn, Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996). 63 Metcalf, Ideologies of the Raj, 67. Peter van der Veer also discusses this in the context of the census and its effects on caste categories necessitating pan-Indian conceptions. Peter van der Veer, Religious Nationalism: Hindus and Muslims in India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 19. 64 See, for instance, Metcalf and Metcalf, A Concise History of India, 61-62, or, for a deeper dive into this aspect of the development of caste as it changed over time, see Bayly, Caste, Society and Politics, Ch. 3. 65 Eugene F. Irschick, Dialogue and History: Constructing South India, 1795-1895 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 4. Susan Bayly also discusses this in Caste, Society and Politics, Ch. 4. 26

then the British used increasingly rigidly defined categories in governing India. Other theorists are more critical of the British role in changing Indian society. M.S.S. Pandian writes, for instance, “Colonialism was many things at once - violent in the name of ‘civilizing’, economically extractive in the name of ‘modernizing’, and naively labeling in the name of gathering ‘knowledge.’ These oxymoronic pairings point to ever-present contradictions in and the instability of the colonial project.”66 Over time, Indians themselves relied on these categories themselves in their

relationships with each other in ways they perhaps might not have otherwise. By the early twentieth century, many Indians experienced caste as a deeply divisive and pervasive practice.67 B.R. Ambedkar noted how much caste played a role in dividing Indian people from each other, writing, “The Caste System is not merely division of labour. It is also a division of laborers.”68

Caste in South India

Caste was practiced and perceived differently in different times and places. In south India in the early twentieth century, caste rules were often rigid.69 There were very few Kshatriya or Vaisya castes, a small percentage of Brahmin castes, and the vast majority of the population identified as non-Brahmin castes or untouchables.70 And, yet,

66 M. S. S. Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin: Genealogies of the Tamil Political Present (Delhi: Permanent Black, 2007), 10. 67 See, for instance: Washbrook, The Emergence of Provincial Politics, 261-2. Subrata Mitra explains that this view is found in the Indian constitution, where caste is the principal factor in inequality in India. Subrata Mitra, “Caste, Democracy and the Politics of Community Formation in India,” in Contextualizing Caste. Eds. Mary Searle-Chatterjee and Ursula Sharma (Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers, 1994), 62. 68 Ramachandra Guha, The Makers of Modern India (Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011), 196. 69 See Nambi Arooran, Tamil Renaissance, 5-6. 70 Ibid., 25-26 and 37. Nambi Arooran includes a chart with percentages of the male population in 1912. In that year, 3.2% of that population were Brahmins, and 85.6% were non-Brahmins. Another 2.8% were Indian Christians or Europeans and Eurasians. One reason that this population was so much less balanced than in other parts of India was likely because of the non-local usage of caste categories by the centralized 27

the Brahmin population held the majority of the highest positions that existed for non- British professionals in south India. This imbalance increasingly gained attention and, eventually, resistance, from the non-Brahmin population, and the Self Respect Movement is only one example of this resistance.71 Many south Indians came to believe that Aryans had brought the caste system with them when they came south centuries prior. This would mean, of course, that the caste system was foreign to south India.72 This theory emerged following the rise of

perceptions of difference between north and south Indian histories that philological and textual study uncovered. Many non-Brahmins in south India found justification for their anti-caste values in the theory that caste did not originate in south India. Caste associations became increasingly common in the early twentieth century.73 This was true across India, but caste associations certainly thrived in south India. Christopher Baker points out that caste associations “were encouraged by government’s unintentional fostering of the political importance of caste. … The Madras Government showed itself increasingly ready to listen to political petitions couched in the language of caste, and to distribute government favors with at least one eye on caste

British government. D. A. Washbrook discusses this disconnect in The Emergence of Provincial Politics, 127. 71 Uma Ramaswamy, “The Belief System of the Non-Brahmin Movement in India: The Andhra Case,” in Asian Survey. Vol. 18, No. 3 (Mar. 1978). 72 Nambi Arooran, Tamil Renaissance, 25. 73 Marguerite Ross Barnett, The Politics of Cultural Nationalism in South India (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), 50. Barnett notes that these caste associations were composed of educated members of primarily forward non-Brahmin castes. Ibid., 56. Washbrook also discusses this phenomenon in The Emergence of Provincial Politics, 261-6. Also: Christopher John Baker, The Politics of South India: 1920-1937 (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 195-200. 28

considerations.”74 Caste associations came together to promote themselves politically, economically, and through explicit adoption of these group identities.75 In south India, following or accompanying the establishment of varieties of caste associations, the release of the “Non-Brahmin Manifesto” occurred in 1916.76 Many scholars mark this as the beginning of the non-Brahmin Dravidian movement. As G. Aloysius notes, there was an attempt to create a unified discourse that excluded Brahminical priority.77 This development was important because there was not a unified

non-Brahmin identity in the very early twentieth century in south India. M.S.S. Pandian quotes a 1917 article in which the newspaper New India noted: “No one who knows the bitter feuds between the right hand and left hand non-Brahman castes of Madras will accept the implication underlying Mr Chettiar’s manifesto that the non-Brahmans are a single, homogenous group, capable of common or united action, even as against the social and religious supremacy of the Brahminical caste.”78 Yet, it was around this time that this conception of the unity of non-Brahmins was put forward, and then gained momentum. A result was the Dravidian movement that manifested in the milieu of anti- colonial sentiment that grew in intensity across India in this period. Tamilians sought “to distinguish Brahmans on racial – not merely caste – lines from all other Madrasis. The ‘true’ Madrasi is a Tamil-speaking Dravidian whose race and culture are to be sharply distinguished from the Brahman’s Indo-Aryan and Sanskritic racial and cultural roots.”79

74 Baker, The Politics of South India, 196. 75 Mitra calls this “horizontal mobilization” in “Caste, Democracy and the Politics of Community Formation in India,” 61-2. 76 See Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin, 1. 77 G. Aloysius, Dalit-Subaltern Self-Identifications: Iyothee Thassar and Tamizhan (New Delhi: Critical Quest, 2010), 18. 78 Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin, 2. 79 Lloyd I. Rudolph, “Urban Life and Populist Radicalism: Dravidian Politics in Madras,” The Journal of Asian Studies. Vol. 20, No. 3 (May, 1961): 285. 29

The introduction of biological, racial difference shows the extent to which the Tamilians believed in their uniqueness within the rest of the Indian population. This was one piece of a pervasive process of regional and group awareness that flourished during this time in south India. This process included aspects of: glorification of history, definition of group identity, language loyalty, and development of ideology which the Dravidian movement displayed. The first non-Brahmin conference was held in 1917 and was linked to the establishment of the Justice Party.80 Although the Justice Party was founded on ideas of unity and reform, it was made up of educated and wealthy men. Their effectiveness was limited because, as explained by Geetha and Rajadurai, “though sensitive and alive to the problems of caste, community and Brahminism, these intellectuals had little or no direct engagement with the political economy of rural India or with the world of workers.”81 In other words, they were elites on the local level. E.V.R. was aware of these limitations, and he formed the Self Respect Movement - a radical, atheist, and anti-caste social reform movement that promoted regional autonomy for southern India during the early twentieth century.

NATIONALISM AND LANGUAGE ON CENTER STAGE

The growth of nationalism was a key component of this period in Indian history. By nationalism, I refer to a population’s self-perception as a people who are separate from others for reasons of ethnicity, language, religion, politics, or any overarching ideology or difference which they perceive as necessitating a break or continued independence from other nations. Those professing nationalism see themselves as

80 V. Geetha, and S.V. Rajadurai, Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium: From Iyothee Thass to Periyar (Calcutta: Samya, 1998), 126. 81 Ibid., 219. 30

deserving autonomy and self-rule. In some ways it can be likened to actions based on an extended community’s extreme self-confidence and self-reliance. Marguerite Ross Barnett defines nationalism as “a state of mind, in which the supreme loyalty of the individual is to the nation-state.”82 This is a useful definition as long as one remembers that the nation-state to which its members are loyal may not have achieved reality yet; nationalism may reflect a community’s dedication to the idea of controlling its nation- state, as in the case of India’s nationalist movement under the British Empire. This

dedication to the idea of the nation-state was complicated in various areas of south India where these ideas were adopted in support of breaking off from the nation-state of India as a whole. In these movements, the idea of forming a separate, local nation-state was supported. It is this to which I refer as sub-nationalism. These movements followed many of the same tendencies as nationalism, though they took place on a much smaller scale – both geographically and in relation to power. These claims were generally not seriously considered by the national Government of India, but they do reflect a population’s perceptions of their difference and their need for autonomy. Nationalism has been repeatedly tied to linguistic change and development. This is seen in the rise in importance of vernacular spoken languages in developing nations throughout history. Within each national community, new standard languages were used to increase communication between the masses and the elites. Hugh Seton-Watson and Jyotirindra Das Gupta are two authors who have noted the central role languages have played in the development of national cultures in a variety of countries throughout history.83 Ernest Gellner defines nationalism as “essentially the transfer of the focus of

82 Barnett, The Politics of Cultural Nationalism in South India, 7. 83 Hugh Seton-Wilson, Nations and States (Boulder: Westview Press, 1977). See pages 48, 148, 159, & 169 for various examples of this phenomenon, along with Jyotirindira Das Gupta, Language Conflict and National Development (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970). 31

man’s identity to a culture which is mediated by literacy and an extensive, formal educational system.”84 Gellner looks at what sort of cultural phenomena work towards supporting nationalism and which earn the population’s support via this function. As mentioned briefly already, an influential step in this process of creating a national consciousness arrived with the popularization of print culture. Printing allowed large increases in numbers of editions of a book or pamphlet to be produced and spread among the population. Benedict Anderson gives us an analysis of the ways printing laid foundations for national consciousnesses. He notes that after printing was developed in Europe, the print languages

created unified fields of exchange and communications below Latin and above the spoken vernaculars… In the process, [the people] gradually became aware of the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people in their particular language-field, and at the same time that only those hundreds of thousands, or millions, so belonged. These fellow-readers, to whom they were connected through print, formed, in their secular, particular, visible invisibility, the embryo of the nationally-imagined community. Second, print-capitalism gave a new fixity to language, which in the long run helped to build that image of antiquity so central to the subjective idea of the nation.85 This highlights two very important factors that developed alongside print. The first is the creation or growth of awareness of the extensive community of which one is a part is key to the feelings of solidarity that arise in response to such awareness. The second factor which Anderson has drawn our attention to is the help that the fixity of language gives to building that image of antiquity that the idea of the nation often depends on. We will see the centrality the image of the antiquity of language holds in south Indian culture throughout this discussion.

84 Ernest Gellner, “Nationalism,” Theory and Society 10, no. 6 (November 1981): 757. 85 Anderson, Imagined Communities, 47. 32

India, Language, and Historical Context

In India, the relationship of language and nationalism that emerged was tied to the colonial context. In the late nineteenth century, India had been under direct rule of the British monarchy for only a few decades following the Indian rebellion against informal British rule in 1857. Increasing numbers of Indians were being educated in English language, literature, and philosophy. The ideas and ideals presented to them via this education contributed to desires for institutions of democracy and evidence of equality within the culture in which they were living and working. However, though the British

aimed to teach Indians about British values and standards, they were unprepared to treat the Indians as they, themselves, would hope and expect to be treated. After all, the British had found in India an invaluable empire, both in trading opportunities and in physical location via world interests. One early Indian expression of these new yearnings is seen in the creation of various literary societies in urban centers around India. These were primarily voluntary associations created to focus attention on local literary traditions. The creation of these literary societies was preceded, importantly, by the establishment of printing as an increasing phenomenon all over India. It was the proliferation of printed books and pamphlets all over the subcontinent which led to rapidly growing literacy and familiarity with texts. The earliest texts to be printed were missionary texts or the ancient Indian texts which had previously only been preserved by hand copying. The new availability of ancient Indian texts led to further knowledge among India’s population of her history which was closely followed by its glorification. Indians’ pride and increasing literacy led to the emergence of increasing numbers of scholars who began expanding and furthering those traditions. Eventually the spread of knowledge and ideas led to the creation of political parties which aimed to influence the direction in which India was heading. It is 33

at this point that the transmission of knowledge contributed to the spread of nationalism on the subcontinent.

South Indian Tamil Language Context

This section explores the influence of literacy and education on south Indian culture. Language came to occupy a central role for south India’s population’s perceptions of itself and its dedication to nationalist ideals. The literary renaissance in south India included the printing of manuscripts which had long been preserved only in palm-leaf manuscript form.86 In parts of the Madras Presidency where Tamil language was spoken, “The immediate consequence of classical works appearing in print for the first time was the easy access available to anyone interested in Tamil literature… To the Tamils these classical works provided a revelation of the splendour of their heritage and soon Tamil scholars began to devote their attention to the task of elaborating the picture of an early and once widespread Dravidian civilization.”87 This literary renaissance in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was an effect of the discoveries through philology and the study of languages and their histories in the early nineteenth century. It was thought at the time that the history of languages was linked to the history of peoples – as if disentangling language development also allowed disentangling of ethnological movement and development.88 Thomas Trautmann has deeply researched the history of the European and Indian study of languages on the subcontinent. He points out that India’s long history of language analysis contributed to the leaps in understanding relationships between languages that occurred in British

86 Nambi Arooran, Tamil Renaissance and Dravidian Nationalism, 15. 87 Ibid., 19. 88 Thomas R. Trautmann, Languages and Nations: The Dravidian Proof in Colonial Madras (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), Preface. 34

India.89 The realization that Dravidian and Sanskritic languages were not related to each other was a significant discovery and contributed significantly in changing south Indian self-conceptions. The surge of interest in Tamil history and ancient culture led to a significant body of scholarship among Tamil speakers on the history of Dravidian culture, including the development of a body of knowledge about the separation between Dravidian and Sanskritic, or Aryan, origins and histories.90 The term “Dravidian” technically refers to a

language family to which the languages spoken in south India belong and can refer to the people who speak those languages. However, due to the political movements discussed below, in practice, “Dravidian” often refers to the Tamils in particular. As attempts were made to spread the everyday usage of Tamil in all areas of life, devotion to the Tamil language began to go beyond practical concerns. Sumathi Ramaswamy has completed a preeminent study on this phenomenon in her book Passions of the Tongue. There she discusses Tamil language as an object of devotion amongst the Tamil speaking population. Tamil as mother tongue progresses to personification as a 91 mother deity named Tamilttay (தமி폍鏍தா뿍, literally: mother Tamil). She traces the

glorification of Tamilttay from academies and scholars to the increasing invocation of praise in street songs, polemical plays, and political speeches.92 She also notes the complete emphasis placed on devotion to the language. The deification and association with Tamil as “mother” helped those who wished to subordinate all concerns to Tamilttay

89 Ibid., 42. 90 See Nambi Arooran, Tamil Renaissance and Dravidian Nationalism, 6-20 and 32-39 for a discussion of the importance of language to nationalism in general, and to specific identity formation in south India. Chapter Three focuses on the revival of Tamil language and literature. 91 Sumathi Ramaswamy, Passions of the Tongue: Language Devotion in Tamil India, 1891-1970 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 85-134. 92 Ibid. 35

devotion – even familial attachments.93 When exploring the questions of why or how devotion to Tamil language took this particular form, Ramaswamy engages with Chatterjee’s theorization above as she examines the perception of Indian women as “uncolonized,” hence “the embodiment of all that is truly and purely Indian.”94 Ultimately, this phenomenon of extreme devotion to the Tamil language contributed to the persistence of the movement working to elevate Tamil language and Dravidian culture.

A converse effect – one which saw a different language develop into a sort of enemy – began occurring alongside the idealization of Tamil. Many people’s set of beliefs began to be crystallized around the anti-Hindi agitations which were the Tamilians’ response to a plan by India’s government to make Hindi the national language after independence. The Tamilians saw that this would give Hindi speakers an advantage in getting jobs and advancing economically and professionally. This feeling went so far that political scientist Robert Hardgrave uses the term “Hindi imperialism” to describe how Tamils viewed the suggested imposition of Hindi upon them.95 The innovative ways in which Tamilians appropriated the ideas of nationalism and culture are seen as they began conceptualizing their own country, Dravidasthan. Marguerite Ross Barnett comments on the cultural power of Tamil nationalism, explaining, “Tamil nationalism is not territorial but cultural nationalism. The cultural nationalist sees the nation as inherent in the group of people who possess certain characteristics; and so, while the territorial nationalist gives priority to the direct relationship of the individual to the territorially

93 Ramaswamy, Passions of the Tongue, 97-113. 94 Ibid., 28-9. Bernard Bate discusses the ways in which this paradigm continues to have a presence in oratory styles and traditions in south India. Bernard Bate in Tamil Oratory and the Dravidian Aesthetic: Democratic Practice in South India (2009) https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/10.7312/bate14756, 168- 71. 95 Robert L. Hardgrave Jr., Essays in the Political Sociology of South India (New Delhi: Manohar, 1979). 36

defined nation-state, the cultural nationalist gives priority to collective cultural realization through nationalism.”96 This was a nationalism based on the cultural essence of the Tamil culture. It was something to be proud of and to be defended. This Tamil nationalism was also highly personal, as “a new, Tamil nationalist cosmology containing conceptualizations of a national domain of Tamils. Articulations of this cosmology simultaneously offered images of personhood appropriate to participate in this Tamil nation.”97 The new images of personhood related to Tamilians had characteristics that

were somewhat unique to their specific context.

Differences between Tamil and Telugu Speaking Areas

Tamil is one of four primary Dravidian languages spoken in south India. The other three are Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam. During British rule, many of these Dravidian language speakers were living in the Madras Presidency and Bombay Presidency, though other parts of these populations were living under various princely states such as the States of Mysore and Hyderabad. This discussion has been focusing on the Dravidian movement in Tamil speaking areas and the effects this movement had on the language of its proponents. Each language population responded to Indian nationalist pressures in different ways. Tamil had the most extreme and sustained response, culminating in the devotion to Tamilttay explored above. As a contrast to this movement, and as an acknowledgement of differences within Dravidian populations as a whole, I will look briefly at the effects of nationalist and language movements on the Telugu- speaking population, the second largest linguistic group in India.98 As a people they are

96 Barnett, The Politics of Cultural Nationalism in South India, 8. 97 Price, “Revolution and Rank in Tamil Nationalism,” 360. 98 K.V. Narayana Rao, The Emergence of Andhra Pradesh (Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1973), 1. 37

referred to as Andhras, and the linguistic states in which the majority of Andhras now live in are named Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Telugu’s development followed some of the same trends as Tamil language development. The Andrahs worked to uplift the vernaculars and benefit the Telugu language, mirroring developments across India. In 1906 the first publisher of modern Telugu books and translations was established.99 Peter Schmitthenner notes the transition from the almost exclusive literary usage of Telugu according to formal grammar rules

expressed as poetry to the adoption of a style of prose writing in the colloquial style.100 Though this began in the mid-nineteenth century, it was not popularized until the early twentieth century with the beginning of the “Modern Telugu Movement”.101 As seen in other areas of India, the growth of interest in improving the position of the vernacular led to increased literacy and education. This developed into an increase in knowledge of the cultural inheritance of the Telugu literature and population. To promote and support research on Andhra history, the Andhra Historical Research Society was formed in 1921.102 Increasing pride in their heritage led the Andhras to seek a greater position for themselves on an all-India scale.103 In 1913 a pamphlet was published under the title The Andhra Movement. The stated goals of the movement included increasing education, improvement of agricultural and health practices, promotion of Telugu literature through the encouragement of the Telugu press, and increased public service.104 Here we see the familiar goals of increased access to education and the development of

99 Ibid., 15. 100 Peter L. Schmitthenner, Telugu Resurgence (New Delhi: Manohar, 2001), 217. 101 Ibid., 221. See also p. 280 for more about the development of modern Telugu literature. 102 Narayana Rao, The Emergence of Andhra Pradesh, 67. 103 Ibid. See Chapter Two for further discussion on the progression of these attempts on the part of the Andhra population. 104 Quoted in Narayana Rao, The Emergence of Andhra Pradesh, 36. Originally The Andhra Movement was written and distributed by The Andhra Conference Committee, Guntur, 1913. 38

the vernacular press stated as primary goals of the movement. Emotional ties to languages that grew to be perceived as inalienable attributes of their speakers led to shifts in identity politics.105 The movement gained a political voice with the creation of the Andhra Maha Sabha in 1913.106 Though we see the Telugu and Tamil language movements follow some of the same trends, there are also a number of areas where we see them differ significantly. The first daily newspaper which was established in the Andhra movement was purposely

established as an English-language daily. The thought behind this aimed not necessarily at the spread of knowledge and propaganda among the Andhras. Rather, those in support of this movement argued, “If the Andhras would gain their object they should first of all start a daily newspaper in English, so that the British government in India, the Houses of Parliament in England and, for the matter of that, the whole world may get information about their aims and aspirations.”107 Though this was the first Andhra-owned daily, there were other weekly or monthly journals which were printed in the Telugu language. Another way in which this movement differed from the Tamil movement was that there was far less antagonism along caste lines. The Andhras focused less on the idea of Aryan Brahmin oppression versus the majority Dravidian population. Rather, the eventual goal of the Andhra movement became separation into administrative units (eventually, states) based on linguistic criteria. The caste issues were present, but on a smaller scale. The lack of these antagonisms amongst the population meant that the Andhra movement was

105 Lisa Mitchell. Language, Emotion, and Politics in South India: The Making of a Mother Tongue (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009). 106 Narayana Rao, The Emergence of Andhra Pradesh, 49. See Chapter Three, “Acceleration of the Movement,” for more on the political developments associated with the Andhra Maha Sabha. 107 Quoted in Ibid., 39. Originally printed in The Durbar, 1 September 1912. 39

generally more unifying among the population compared with the factional Dravidian political scene among the Tamils.108 One of the most obvious differences between the Telugu and Tamil movements was the extent to which the languages were venerated. We have seen the deification of the Tamil language in Tamilttay. There were glimpses of such praise in Telugu propaganda. For instance, one song composed during the early centuries of the twentieth century read:

The soil of Andhra is gold to us Her waters our nectar, The Andhra air our life breath Andhra Desa is verily our Deity.109 This trend towards deifying the Telugu language and land never gained momentum as it did among the Tamilians, however, and though songs such as these can be found, they were far less common than their Tamil equivalents. By the mid-1920’s, the goal of the formation of a separate linguistic province for the Andhras became the central issue of the Andhra Movement.110 The Madras Legislature put a motion forth in 1927 to the Government of India recommending the creation of an Andhra province, but this was rejected by the central government.111 Unlike the progression of the Dravidian movement among the Tamils, the political organizations under the Andhras were generally cohesively focused together upon this

108 Schmitthenner, Telugu Resurgence, 24. Chapter One deals with the development of Telugu identity. 109 Quoted in Narayana Rao, The Emergence of Andhra Pradesh, 67. 110 Ibid., 84. As further background, Lisa Mitchell explores the changing subjectivity of languages resulting from new focuses on historical narrative, changing technologies, changing markers of political identity, and increasing perception of universal translation across languages in Language, Emotion, and Politics in South India. 111 Ibid., 90. 40

goal of a separate Andhra province. The Andhra Maha Sabha and the Congress worked together towards these goals. They were not to achieve success, however, until 1956.112

POLITICAL CHANGES AND THE EMERGENCE OF THE SELF RESPECT MOVEMENT

Choosing a starting point from which to begin describing the historical context in which the Self Respect Movement arose is not an obvious choice. Every instance ties back to an earlier one, and on, and on. So, I will choose one before narrowing down to the south Indian context, and will begin in the period following the shift from

responsibility from the East India Company to crown rule in 1857, mentioned above in the context of the history of religious groups on the subcontinent. While some changes that followed the switch to crown rule were direct effects,

other changes were results of new technologies.113 The rapid expansion of the extensive railway system across India took place in the late nineteenth century, as did the growth of print communications. Both of these technologies served to connect populations. This was the period when organizations and associations began to flourish. Two retrospectively critical groups, the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, were founded in 1885 and 1906 respectively.114 The Indian National Congress was much more present in south India, despite being a central, all-India organization. Critics charged that the Indian National Congress tended to be run by Brahmins and that it wavered in its attempts to address various specific populations such as Dalits, women, or regional-specific groups.115 By the early twentieth century, the Indian National Congress

112 Peter L. Schmitthenner, Telugu Resurgence, 23. 113 Bose and Jalal, Modern South Asia, 78-101. 114 Ibid., 86, 95. 115 This was in fact what led E.V.R. to quit his membership in the Indian National Congress after being a very active member for five years (including two terms as president, in 1920 and 1924). See Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin, 189. 41

was simultaneously successful, but also much criticized in south India. Many other associations were also forming at this time. Many campaigned for political rights and representation, and through a series of changes, Britain allowed small but growing participation in governmental administration and decision-making. There were many, many Indian reformers and politicians who contributed to changing the course of Indian politics and social shifts. However, Mohandas K. Gandhi was one of the most influential. His role was and is often idealized. Here, I discuss him

occasionally throughout this dissertation through a somewhat critical lens. Gandhi was especially effective because he captured the imagination of his nation and also the world. However, that can also cloud the realities that he embodied. Arundhati Roy has written a very interesting comparative work that looks at Mohandas K. Gandhi and B. R. Ambedkar through their work and words regarding caste.116 She highlights many of the contradictions in Gandhi’s approach; what he said was often at odds with what he chose to do or to support.117 Regardless, Gandhi was emblematic of this period, and the movements he led garnered massive attention and had deep effects. Another influence on change in south India, especially, was the activity of the Theosophical Society. The Theosophical Society headquarters were established in Adyar (just south of Madras) in 1882, and the Society went on to have a huge influence on

116 Arundhati Roy, The Doctor and the Saint: Caste, Race, and the Annihilation of Caste: the Debate between B.R. Ambedkar and M.K. Gandhi (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2017). 117 Roy points out that, although he regularly spoke about the uplift of untouchables, he consistently undermined their attempts to create their own political organizations and elect their own representatives. Ibid., 118. Elsewhere she also critiqued him for the gulf between what he said versus what he did, writing, “Gandhi always said that he wanted to live like the poorest of the poor. The question is, can poverty be simulated? Poverty, after all, is not just a question of having no money or no possessions. Poverty is about having no power. … The battle of the poor and the powerless is one of reclamation, not renunciation.” Ibid., 62. 42

social change in south India in the following decades.118 Initially after its establishment at Adyar, the two people who led and promoted the Theosophical Society were Colonel Henry Olcott and Madame Helena Blavatsky. He was from the United States, and she was born in Ukraine. The two shared an interest in occult and spiritual concepts, and they dedicated their lives to sharing their interests through writing, speaking, and through establishing the Theosophical Society.119 In 1891 Madame Blavatsky passed away, and in 1893 another personable and enthusiastic Theosophist arrived in Adyar: Annie Besant.

Ms. Besant became the new co-leader of the movement and continued to promote Theosophy after Colonel Olcott passed away in 1907.120 The Theosophical Society idealized Brahmanical Hinduism and unquestioningly adopted hierarchical approaches to understanding Indian society. They were fascinated by Sanskrit and explicitly privileged high-caste, educated Indian society. 121 As M.S.S. Pandian notes, “Olcott’s mission was to propagate and popularize Orientalist notions of Hinduism which celebrated Sanskritic texts and Brahmins as true bearers of Hindu authenticity.”122 The Theosophical Society was also extremely prolific at spreading their perspectives. They established many journals and contributed to the spread of printing,123 and they also continued to be quite involved through the nationalist years as Annie Besant worked for Indian uplift – or at least, her version of it.124 The early decades of the 1900s saw the tension of discontent begin to hover more consistently close to the surface of Indian society. Increasingly, therefore, it also was

118 Kenneth W. Jones, The New Cambridge History of India: Socio-religious reform movements in British India, Vol. 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 171. 119 Ibid. 120 See Ibid., 167-179, for these details and a discussion of the impact of the Theosophical Society in India. 121 Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin, 35-7. 122 Ibid., 51. 123 Nambi Arooran, Tamil Renaissance and Dravidian Nationalism, 58. 124 Geetha, and Rajadurai, Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium, 44-45. 43

channeled into organizations and movements across the subcontinent. The explosion of knowledge about Tamil heritage, alongside literary societies, newspapers, and the growth of vernacular political oratory helped change Tamilians’ perceptions of themselves, and Tamil-language devotionalism surged.125 The intellectual climate throughout India was burgeoning with change as nationalism took hold and manifested across a variety of communities. Several tropes were actively being used and manipulated through an intense process of identity formation, for example: Indian nationalism, Tamil

“nationalism”, Dravidian-ness, caste, linguistic identification, religion, and gender. Another thread of change was more localized: in the Madras Presidency, the non- Brahmin movement held its first conference in 1917.126 This followed the release of the Non-Brahmin Manifesto, which is often considered the best marker of the beginning of the Dravidian movement in south India.127 The Dravidian movement became a hugely influential phenomenon in south India, and is related to all of the fields of identity development that I discuss in Chapter Three of this dissertation. The Dravidian movement and the ideas in the Non-Brahmin Manifesto empowered a large portion of the Indian population and also played a role in conceptually clarifying the dichotomy of Brahmin and non-Brahmin which continued to be centrally important to the self-defining work of the nationalist movement in India.128 The establishment of the Justice Party followed the release of the Non-Brahmin Manifesto. The Justice Party was the first political party in the Dravidian movement, and it portrayed Brahmins as the oppressors of the non-Brahmins. In 1920, the Justice Party

125 Nambi Arooran, Tamil Renaissance and Dravidian Nationalism, 56-69. 126 Geetha, and Rajadurai, Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium, 126. 127 Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin. Pandian begins his book with this event, and ultimately this entire work reflects on social changes and effects that sprang from this moment. 128 Ibid. 44

gained a majority in the elections in Madras, and it constructed the first non-Brahmin ministry there.129 The Justice Party was, however, a party run by Indian elites from the Madras Presidency under British colonial rule, and though concerned with highlighting the domination of south India by north Indian Brahmins, it did not focus on intra-Madras Presidency caste oppression.130 Its effectiveness was limited because, as Pandian explains: “though sensitive and alive to the problems of caste, community and Brahminism, these intellectuals had little or no direct engagement with the political

economy of rural India or with the world of workers.”131 The Justice Party opposed the Indian National Congress and pointed to its north-Indian leadership while portraying it as the mouthpiece of Brahmin dominance in the context of south India. E.V.R. was active in the Indian National Congress at the time that the Justice Party was established. He spent the next few years realizing that he was interested in a much more bold, contentious, and even iconoclastic approach to change, and this led to his formation of the Self Respect Movement. In 1926 the Self Respect Movement was established not as a political party, but as a social reform organization.132 The freedom from depending on votes allowed the Self Respect Movement to be a far more revolutionary organization than the Justice Party. The Self Respect Movement protested and critiqued tradition and society, working to change the basic assumptions through which society functioned to increase equality for all. It held conferences, organized protests, established many journals, published massive numbers of pamphlets and books,

129 Geetha and Rajadurai, Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium, 163-4. 130 Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin, 251. 131 Ibid., 219. 132 Bala Jeyaraman, Periyar: A Political Biography of E.V. Ramasamy (New Delhi: Rupa Publications, 2013), 20-1. 45

and – critically for this dissertation – created alternative traditions to promote non- religious and non-stratified societies.

Tamil “Nationalism”

The Dravidian movement expanded as new ideologies of anti-Brahminism and anti-Hindi feelings grew. Eventually, “Periyar and the Self-Respect movement viewed anti-Hindi agitations as a concerted fitting response to Congress brahmin hegemony, now underwritten by the Northern bania’s economic interests. They came to espouse a Tamil-

Dravidian nationalism to counter, retard and deflect the lures of an ‘India’ and the (false) unity of people it embodied.”133 In establishing themselves as an alternative to Congress (alongside the early and far less radical political party, the Justice Party), the Self-Respect movement posited Congress as a Brahmin-controlled party which was not working in the best interests of ninety-five percent of the population. This feeling evolved into a sort of regional nationalism over time, espousing the purity of the Dravidian people. Eventually, “Such a radical linguistic sensibility was cultivated in the course of the movement’s various campaigns and, as the Self-Respecters came to address vaster and vaster numbers of people and an ever wider range of issues, they enhanced the vocabulary of the Tamil language, rendered it flexible and conceptually rich”.134 The abstract conceptualizations of the role of the mother tongue, Tamil, contributed towards a strong identification by the population with Dravidian culture. The idea of the nation played two roles in the development of the Dravidian movement. The idea of the Indian nation was a powerful determinant in leading the Dravidians to imagine their roles in this newly independent country. In Tamil Nadu, there

133 Geetha and Rajadurai, Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium, 489. 134 Ibid., 484. 46

were many supporters of Congress and of independence from the British, yet there were those like the Justice Party and the Self-Respect movement who posited north India as the oppressor. Eugene Irschick notes, “The feeling that Madras is being treated shabbily has been a continuing feature of twentieth-century politics. Right or wrong, Madras politicians and bureaucrats have continued to believe that their province is unique and that its problems require special attention.”135 This belief that they were not receiving the attention they should have led many Tamilians to reject much that was being done by the

central Indian government. E.V.R., as the leader of the Self-Respect movement, eventually positioned himself as an antithesis to Gandhi. We see that “From ardent supporter of Gandhi, Periar [sic.] moved to a view of him as a symbol of Brahminism and North Indian domination, which he claimed Congress rule would bring.”136 The anger toward the central Indian government was closely related to the issues Tamil Nadu was facing concerning caste equality. Fair treatment was what the Tamilians were after, and, “The non-Brahmins’ desire for power and office derived from their general conviction that unless power was evenly distributed and shared amongst various communities, there could not evolve a national community or a democratic polity in India.”137 The Dravidian movement, in many of its manifestations (the Self-Respect movement and the later political parties, the Dravida Kazhagam and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam), called for a new independent nation of Dravidasthan, as mentioned earlier. This represents an appropriation of the idea of nationalism on the part of the Dravidians as they both worked against the Indian nation and worked toward their own nation. We

135 Eugene F. Irschick, Politics and Social Conflict in South India: The Non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916-1929 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), 357. 136 Narendra Subramanian, Ethnicity and Populist Mobilization: Political Parties, Citizens, and Democracy in South India (Delhi; New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 114. 137 Geetha and Rajadurai, Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium, 137. 47

see that “The Self-Respecters … explained their position to the Left and entreated them to support the cause of Dravidian-Tamil nationalism. These debates are significant because they proposed an understanding and definition of nationalism which was novel, creative and radical.”138 Along with this appropriation of the idea of a nation, we see expansive ideologies coming forth as new ethical ideals were created. For instance, “Politicians and propagandists redefined honor to mean the dignity which a man has regardless of caste. Only in a nation for Tamils and run by Tamils could manam [honor]

be protected and realized.”139 Interestingly, the idea of a Dravidasthan that was founded on equality, which many in Tamil Nadu wanted to manifest as a socialist government, ran up against the idea of the Indian nation thus: “A genuine, ardent Socialist commitment is discouraged by Dravidian concern for North Indian exploitation, which they identify with the socialist-inspired All-Indian economic planning of the Congress Government in Delhi.”140 We see a contest over power throughout the Tamilians’ struggle to define themselves in relation to the idea of nation. The Dravidian people utilized the nationalist concept in new and different ways to establish their own identities and create new values. The Justice Movement and the Self Respect Movement went on to affect later politics in South India. In 1944 the Justice Party and the Self Respect Movement decided to join forces, combining their respective approaches, to reach as much of the Dravidian population as they could. The new political party was called the Dravida Kazhagam (DK) (Dravidian Party), and was led by E.V.R.141 This was the first Dravidian party to experience notable electoral success in Tamil Nadu. In 1949 there was a split in the party

138 Ibid., 478. 139 Pamela Price, “Revolution and Rank in Tamil Nationalism,” The Journal of Asian Studies. Vol. 55, No. 2 (May 1996): 378. 140 Rudolph, “Urban Life and Populist Radicalism”, 285. 141 Barnett, The Politics of Cultural Nationalism in South India, 65-69. 48

when C.N. Annadurai left and founded the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (or Dravidian Progressive Party) – the DMK.142 Over the next number of years the Dravida Kazhagam declined, and when another split happened and the ADMK (later: the AIADMK) was formed from the DMK, this pair of parties went on to become entrenched in the political landscape of state politics.143 These two political parties went on to trade power back and forth on the Tamil Nadu state level for many decades. There have been many shifts in perspectives and approaches in the politics of Tamil Nadu; however, strains of early

idealism and progressivism remain.

E.V.R.

E.V.R. was the founder of the Self Respect Movement and was often its public face. He was a reportedly charismatic reformer who was certainly skilled at courting controversy with his fiery speeches and radical rhetoric. He was very active in the growth and perseverance of the Dravidian movement in south India. I discuss him regularly throughout this dissertation, for it is the disparity between his inflammatory liberalism and a perceived traditional and conservative south India that initially intrigued me. I introduce him here. E.V.R. was born on September 17, 1879 in Erode. His father was a wealthy merchant, and E.V.R. had an older brother and two younger sisters.144 He was reportedly always a mischievous and inquisitive child, and pushed against social restraints based on caste even when he was young.145 He married young, joined his father in business, but then left and looked for refuge for some months in Varanasi. He returned, however, and

142 Ibid., 69-76. 143 Subramanian, Ethnicity and Populist Mobilization, 247-76. 144 Subramanian, Ethnicity and Populist Mobilization, 2. 145 Interview between Robert Hardgrave and E.V.R., 1969. Personal archive. 49

after that point began becoming active in local politics before joining the Indian National Congress in 1920.146 E.V.R. is interesting in part because he was particularly skilled at inspiring strong reactions. He is often described as iconoclastic, and he was unsparing in his willingness to question the status quo on any topic. For instance, E.V.R. called for August 15, 1947, the day of India’s initial independence from Britain, to be celebrated in south India as a “day of mourning” rather than a day of celebration, and called for a boycott on the

independence celebrations.147 This famous activist from south India, in suggesting that Dravidians were only being transferred from British colonialism to Aryan, or Brahmin, domination, confronted pan-Indian notions of “nationalism” through his aggressive rhetoric. Aryan rule would be even worse for Dravidians than British rule, he argued.148 E.V.R. was known for flamboyantly flouting popular opinion and tradition. His call to mourn India’s independence from Britain was very controversial even in the Madras Presidency, which had seen a great deal of anti-Brahmin campaigning among Dravidians. This dissertation, in part, seeks to broaden our understanding of E.V.R.’s legacy. E.V.R. defined his approach as essentially “rationalist”. His rationalism brought with it a virulent critique of religion alongside a surprising defense of the British (as seen above) and defense of the English language in a time and place that held language politics to be very important. Although E.V.R.’s call to reject the superstition and oppression inherent in religious practice in India invoked Enlightenment values successfully and led to anti- caste, anti-religious, and pro-women’s rights political activity, such approaches had

146 Anita Diehl, Periyar E.V. Ramaswami: a Study of the Influence of a Personality in Contemporary South India (New Delhi: B.I. Publications, 1978), 7-8. 147 E. Sa. Visswanathan, The Political Career of E. V. Ramasami Naicker (Madras: Ravi & Vasanth Publishers, 1983), 331. 148 Ibid. 50

limited appeal. E.V.R. utilized extremism in order to jolt people out of complacency; later politicians dropped that practice. Later politicians selectively continued E.V.R.’s focus on certain values – such as caste equality and the insistence of political and cultural regional authority – but ceased his attacks on religion and defense of the British. Though aggressive and sometimes offensive, E.V.R.’s wit and piercing commentary helped the Self Respect Movement, and the political parties with which it was affiliated, re-define and spread the Dravidian Movement across the Madras Presidency. Some of the ideologies on which E.V.R. particularly focused his attacks were gender disparity (represented, for instance, by critiques of marriage), language, and caste.

REFLECTIONS

This introductory chapter has established the aims, limitations, and approach to the study of non-religion through the examples of E.V.R. and the Self Respect Movement in India. I argue in this dissertation that the rejections of religion by E.V.R. and by the Self Respect Movement fit into the religious landscape of India by contributing to identity formation through the elucidation of specific values and establishment of new normative practices. I suggest that history has failed to appreciate the non-religious dynamics of this movement and the complex role of non-religion in India. The conceptual starting point for this study is through Lois Lee’s conception of non-religion as a potential field of study of tangible social effects. This chapter then turns to the contextualization of the material to come, both theoretically and historically. Broad theories that underlie this inquiry remind us to keep in mind the configurations of power inherent in the study of history and the study of cultures. The concept of “imagined communities” is also introduced in the introductory discussion of the development of nationalism, along with idealizations of “inner” and 51

“outer” realms that map onto gendered, spatial, public, and private realms. From these theoretical bases, I go on to describe the historical and political changes that surrounded the emergence of the Self Respect Movement. New technologies that connected increasingly large populations, along with changing demands and expectations between the Indians and the British, contributed to an increasingly volatile political climate. Reform was everywhere, and as identities were being envisioned, there was competition for loyalties. The Dravidian movement emerged in south India, and regional awareness grew along with resistance to outside pressures. The Self Respect Movement and E.V.R. are introduced here, along with their iconoclastic approaches to reform. This is the ground on which the rest of this study will build. Eventually, the questions will be asked: what contributed to identity formation in south India in the early twentieth century? How did individuals write about their experiences or perceptions of religion? And, ultimately, what can we learn about the role that non-religion played in the lives of those who adopted new perspectives and practices through the Self Respect Movement?

52

Chapter 2: “Rationalists, Humanists, and Atheists” The Study of Religion and the Emergence of Rationalism

First, it must be noted again that it is not only in the Indian context that labels like rationalists, humanists, and atheists are often used interchangeably with respect to organized groups.149 – Johannes Quack

This chapter examines the historiography of religious studies and various types of non-religion. There are numerous names for types of non-religion, including secularity, atheism, rationalism, humanism, and agnosticism. Because the focus of this study is the

Self Respect Movement, we will be most interested in the term “rationalism.” However, before discussing rationalism, this chapter begins by looking at the concept of religion – the history of its study and definitions – and then goes on to examine the history and contemporary discussion of “the secular”. Secularity, in this chapter, is discussed as a

perspective in which either religious belief or unbelief are viable options.150 Finally, the chapter will concentrate on how the term “rationalism” emerged and how it differed from other types of unbelief. Overall, this chapter lays a foundation for following chapters that delve into the ethos of the Self Respect Movement and its earliest and most vocal proponent, E. V. Ramasami. Easily one of the sources most relevant to this study of the Self Respect Movement as a rationalist movement is Johannes Quack’s Disenchanting India,151 in which he undertakes a study of a rationalist movement in India in the context of non- religion. Quack states that his study intends to contribute “empirically as well as theoretically to a field of study that has been widely neglected in the cultural sciences: the

149 Johannes Quack, Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 286. 150 This definition of secularism can be found, particularly, in Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2007). 151 Quack, Disenchanting India. 53

spectrum of non-religion(s) and unbelief in India, from religious indifference to outright criticism of religion(s).”152 This study differs from Quack’s because his is an ethnography of a contemporary iteration of a rationalist organization in India (ANiS, or Maharastra Andhashraddha Nirmulan Samiti; translated as Organization for the Eradication of Superstition)153 whereas this study falls more into the category of the history of ideas. Further, Quack’s work is much more concerned with India today, whereas this

study will focus instead primarily on India during the early- to mid-twentieth century. However, Quack highlights a phenomenon relevant to this study: a deficit of academic study of the historical context of rationalism in India. Quack writes in his introduction:

Empirically, it is particularly significant that, in the case of India, very little serious academic work has been done on antireligious movements. This is largely because scholars of India tend to, as an anonymous reviewer for this book put it, concentrate on the many religions of India under the frequently unchallenged assumption that Indians are “notoriously religious” (to paraphrase what the African scholar U.S. Mbiti said about African societies). The predilection for studying the religions of India has led to a dearth of scholarly material exploring popular rationalist and atheist groups in India …154 This dearth of material on the non-religious and the tendency of scholars to concentrate on the religious is exactly what inspired continual delving into the subject matter presented here. The discussion in this chapter will, however, have some limitations in exploring the Indian context of rationalism. Since that is a topic large enough for an entire book, these limitations are noted here at the outset in the attempt to move on in future chapters to the ultimate topic: a study of the Self Respect Movement, E.V.R., and the reliance on

152 Quack, Disenchanting India, 4. 153 Ibid. 154 Ibid., 4-5. 54

rationalism for both. So, with the context and limits of this chapter laid out, we will move on to a discussion of religion, secularity, and the story of the emergence of the term rationalism. Lastly, I present a historical overview of non-religion in India. This historical review of the place non-religion has held in India is a background component to discussions about specific, experiential non-religion later in this dissertation.

THE STUDY OF RELIGION

Historical Trajectory of the Study of Religion

Writing on the nature of religion goes back over two millennia;155 the present discussion will begin in the seventeenth century, in Europe. Before the seventeenth century, Europeans were viewed as having been generally homogenous in their acceptance of the power of supernatural forces.156 Yet, as increasing exploration led to a growing awareness of other peoples, places, and beliefs, accompanied by internal Christian contestations such as the Protestant Reformation, a rising tension was placed on the “universality” of religion. Accordingly, the seventeenth century witnessed attempts to posit an underlying shared nature across all religions (termed “Natural Religion”), alongside an increasing focus on reason in the study of religion. The eighteenth century brought further interaction with other cultures along with corresponding advances in knowledge. The study of languages, especially, became central to the understanding of new peoples and places, and philology, textual criticism, and hermeneutics began to be used in the study of religion. David Hume utilized the increasing focus on reason and science and applied it to thought. He developed a

155 Eric Sharpe begins his historical survey of comparative religion by discussing Greek writings from the sixth century B.C.E. Eric J. Sharpe, Comparative Religion: A History (New York: Scribner's, 1975), 3. 156 For a wonderful explication of this, see Taylor, A Secular Age, chapter 1. I also touch on this again, briefly, in my early discussion of secularity, below. 55

skeptical approach to religious belief, searching instead for rigorous empirical consideration through the evidence of sense experience. For Hume, religion was essentially irrational, and therefore false. The eighteenth century ended with the realities brought about by the American and French Revolutions. The changes from these revolutions were sudden and radical in terms of political order and assumptions. Reactions were varied, and ranged from excitement and inspiration to fear and distrust. The revolutions represented, for many, a

threatening version of what could happen if reliance on reason and the rejection of religion were taken too far. In the study of religion, the nineteenth century brought about a backlash against pure reason with idealist and romantic notions of religions. Friedrich Schleiermacher, for instance, attempted to study religion through a new combination of theoretical and practical approaches. He defined religion as “a way of thinking, a peculiar way of contemplating the world, and also as a way of acting, a special kind of conduct and character.”157 Additionally, the influence of science and the scientific method grew as social evolutionary ideas exploded. Max Muller and James Frazer are two of the nineteenth century’s most influential theorists on religion. Muller’s approach is typified by a mixture of the romanticism of the time (seen, for instance, in his fascination and idealization of India),158 and a scientific philological approach. For Muller, language, mythology, and religion were intertwined. James Frazer also held myth central to his analysis, and his The Golden Bough was a comprehensive work which was very

157 Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers (New York: Harper, 1958), 20. 158 Ivan Strenski describes the culture of “Indomania” en vogue in Europe, and especially Germany, at the time. Ivan Strenski, Thinking About Religion: An Historical Introduction to Theories of Religion (Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 2006), 69-90. 56

influential. Both Muller and Frazer believed that Christianity demonstrated a higher level of development than other religious traditions or cultures. Around the turn of the twentieth century, psychological approaches to the study of religion came to the fore. William James and Sigmund Freud are two examples of this trend. Both James and Freud focused on individual experiences of religion: James through Pragmatism (the idea that truth could be found through an examination of consequences), and Freud through Psychoanalysis (a science of the mind based on the role of the unconscious). While James focused on phenomena such as feelings and experience, Freud insisted that religion was an illusion that is created or sustained due to fears of uncontrollable society or nature. Both James and Freud, therefore, focused on the relationships between mental states and religion. Throughout the twentieth century, individual religious experience was central to the study of religion. Emile Durkheim took James’ and Freud’s considerations of the function of religious belief for the individual and projected them onto society. For Durkheim, religion is a social or collective phenomenon. Ritual, authority, and society’s delineations of what is sacred and profane are the subjects of his studies. Society is also the focus for Max Weber, although he focuses on particular religions’ influences on particular cultures in the development of economic and social systems. In the 1960s, Victor Turner took such cultural anthropological approaches and utilized the contemporary practice of intensive fieldwork to write an ethnography of a particular society. Religious action was central to Turner’s understanding of religion. Another approach was developed in the twentieth century for the study of religion: phenomenology. Phenomenology is an attempt to study the nature of religion itself, especially through specific attitudes such as belief that religion is sui generis (a

57

truly unique experience or reality that must be studied as such), and epoche (the adoption of an attitude of impartiality). Phenomenologists attempt to explicate the internal religious experience of practitioners to affect an authentic understanding. Alfred North Whitehead, for instance, wrote, “Religion is the art and the theory of the internal life of man, so far as it depends on the man himself and on what is permanent in the nature of things. This doctrine is the direct negation of the theory that religion is primarily a social fact.”159 Rudolf Otto, G. Van der Leeuw, and Mircea Eliade exemplify this tradition.

Eliade was especially influential – perhaps due to the wide range of his work and his insistence on crossing categories of study or thought. For instance, he felt working with contradictions was important to overcome feelings of separation from the sacred, and he was skilled at working with the meaning and interpretation of myth and symbol.

Contemporary Debate in the Study of Religion

Contemporary scholarship on religion is characterized by attempts to bridge many of the approaches to the study of religion just discussed. Some theorists, such as Tomoko Masuzawa, Talal Asad, Russell McCutcheon, and David Chidester, view religion as a culturally constructed category that needs to be examined in the context of colonialist constructions of knowledge and politics. Many theorists continue to study religion and its interaction with society, such as Peter L. Berger, Daniele Hervieu-Leger, and Jose Casanova. Such cultural approaches have grown increasingly nuanced and complex; Casanova, for instance, explores the ways religion functions within and moves between the private and public spheres, and Hervieu-Leger presents religion as a collective memory of meaningful practices or experiences. Finally, many contemporary theorists continue to focus on the experience of religion; Thomas Tweed, Ann Taves, and Charles

159 Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making (Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1926). 58

Taylor employ cultural, historical, and philosophical perspectives in reflecting upon the experience of religion. The phenomenological approach that religion is sui generis laid the foundation for the dichotomy – whether religion is a unique and authentic experience itself or not – that guides what arguments may or may not be made in the study of religion. Belief that religion is sui generis, for Rudolf Otto, means that religious emotion is described as the Mysterium tremendum - a feeling of awe, something “wholly other” and beyond

rationalism, in response to the overwhelming experience of the numinous.160 For Eliade, sui generis means that religious experience consists in “the reactualization of myths, [through which] religious man attempts to approach the gods and to participate in being.”161 For those who reject the sui generis nature of religion, there are many theoretical positions from which one may approach the study of religion. Definitions may carry undertones of Functionalism, Materialism, Structuralism, Evolutionism, Psychology, Symbolism, Skepticism, Feminism, or Postcolonialism. For William James, religion “shall mean for us the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine."162 James’ individualistic, psychological approach is visible behind his focus on “the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude.”163 Emile Durkheim writes: “A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to

160 Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958). 161 Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion (New York: Harcourt, 1959), 106. 162 William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature; Being the Gifford Lectures on Natural Religion Delivered at Edinburgh in 1901-1902 (New York: Modern Library, 1902), 31. 163 Ibid. 59

sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.”164 Durkheim focuses on “beliefs and practices” that unite followers “into one single moral community” in his Functionalist approach to religion as a cultural phenomenon. As described in the short overview here, the late twentieth century has seen resistance against taking any single perspective in the study of religion. For instance, Talal Asad asserts that “…there cannot be a universal definition of religion, not only because its constituent elements and relationships are historically specific, but because that definition is itself the historical product of discursive processes.”165 Asad’s post- colonialist stance contributes to his intentional rejection of the authentic relationship between definitions of religion and experiences of religion. Jonathan Z. Smith sums up the reductionist critique, writing, “It has been the special contribution of the historian of religion to insist on the all but infinite nature of the plenum which confronts man in his religiousness while, at the same time, pointing to the reduction of this plenum by the various historical and cultural units they study.”166

SECULARITY

This discussion of secularity will mirror the above discussion of religion; it will begin with an historical overview of the development of this idea, and will culminate in the positing of what is known as the “secularization thesis.” The second phase of this

164 Emile Durkheim, and Karen E. Fields, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (New York: Free Press, 1995), 44. 165 Talal Asad, Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), 29. 166 Jonathan Z. Smith, Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982). 60

discussion will examine contemporary debate over the secularization thesis, and indeed, the very nature of secularity. In his remarkable exploration of secularity, A Secular Age, Charles Taylor suggests that there has been a fundamental shift in perspective from “archaic societies” in which “religion was ‘everywhere, was interwoven with everything else, and in no sense constituted a separate sphere of its own,”167 for whom “the whole set of distinctions we make between the religious, political, economic, social, etc., aspects of our society”

would not even make sense.168 Accepting such an idea, of a society with different assumptions at its core compared to what is found in the world we live in today, is not necessary for understanding what Taylor’s usage of the term “secularization” refers to, but it does help it stand out in relief. Taylor aims “to define and trace [the process] which takes us from a society in which it was virtually impossible not to believe in God, to one in which faith, even for the staunchest believer, is one human possibility among others… Belief in God is no longer axiomatic. There are alternatives.”169 This shift that Taylor describes dovetails nicely with Lee’s definition of secularity discussed in Chapter One: any situation in which religious authorities and concerns are subordinate to other powers and interests. Putting these together, Taylor has described the cultural/internal shift in perspectives necessary for the perspective Lee has described to flourish. As this chapter explores the emergence of unbelief in the European context, there is no claim that ideas or values originated in Europe and spread outward in any linear manner. Rather, Europe is where such language started to be used. The question as to

167 Taylor, A Secular Age, 2. 168 Ibid. 169 Ibid., 3. In his book chronicling unbelief in America, James Turner also notes that at a certain point in history, “available ideas in the culture changed so as to make unbelief viable.” James Turner, Without God, Without Creed: The Origins of Unbelief in America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), xiv. 61

what extent particular ideas spread is a different one than to what extent vocabulary spread. A guiding question for this examination is: as the vocabulary of “rationalism” spread, in this case to India, to what extent did the ideas shift? In the context of the historical presence of philosophical atheism that I discussed in Chapter One, how did the vocabulary of rationalism map onto pre-existing religious intransigence?

Historical Development of the Concept of “the Secular”

The word “secularization” was first used to refer to a concrete historical process regarding the separation of church property (monasteries, landholdings, and wealth) from the church, by the state, after the Protestant Reformation.170 Jose Casanova notes that since that time, “secularization” refers to the establishment of a dualism, setting faith and reason in similar opposing positions, following movement or change in a location in a religious sphere from a secular sphere.171 There was a growing split between the elite and the popular culture after the late Renaissance: a sort of secession by elites from many popular forms of devotion in which they had previously participated.172 The increasing importance of reason alongside “Natural Religion” in the seventeenth century was noted above; this awareness of “reason” led to an increasing reliance on ideas of the separation of rationality, naturalness, and immanence from ideas of irrationality, the supernatural, and transcendence. The seventeenth century also saw the rise of the idea of the modern moral order: the idea that “human beings are rational, sociable agents who are meant to collaborate in peace to their mutual benefit.”173 “Collaboration,” here, proceeds to expand

170 Jose Casanova, Public Religions in the Modern World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 13. 171 Ibid., 13-14. This is an example of exactly the phenomena mentioned in Chapter One (originally from Lois Lee): discussions of secularism have often blurred the distinctions about whether it is a question of priority or belief. 172 Taylor, A Secular Age, 87. 173 Ibid., 159. 62

until “an exchange of advantages” is often perceived, or in other words, humans are seen to be “in an exchange of services:”174 soon, humans came “to see our society as an ‘economy’, an interlocking set of activities of production, exchange and consumption.”175 Awareness of economic concerns and models were still developing during this time alongside Europeans’ growing travel and trade with other peoples. The eighteenth century, which, as we saw above, was characterized by increasing interaction with other cultures and growing intercultural knowledge, brought about a

growing dissemination of information with the spread of printing and travel. This led to the development of the public sphere – a shared space in which exchanges of information were viewed as being part of one big debate, and in which opinions were formed. This has not only a normative function, but also relates to conceptions about “the people” as an entity that will eventually be central to ideas of democracy. It is into this public sphere that Hume’s skepticism developed. This is consistent with the image of the growing separation of reason and irrationalism that gained strength in the previous century. Finally, the end of the French Revolution demonstrates an extreme case of the people’s voice – crafted within the public sphere – insisting on being heard. It is generally widely accepted that the Enlightenment period following the French and American revolutions was deeply instrumental in the shift in attitude towards non-religious world-views. Although it is debatable as to what extent the shift in thinking that happened most precipitously following the revolutions - the explicit claims to separations between religious and political realms, and the parallel rights of individuals - spread and influenced other cultures, it is reasonable to conclude that this shift in thinking at least played a part in widening perspectives globally. I neither consider the effects of

174 Taylor, A Secular Age, 179. 175 Ibid., 181. 63

the Enlightenment period as axiomatic in other parts of the world, nor do I see them as irrelevant. Changes that were filtering through cultures and among individuals also included increasing scientific understanding and a corresponding growth of confidence in the ability to learn how the world works. As the number of unexplainable phenomena lessened, the more a sense of understandable order grew. Changes were also occurring in the realm of civic life. As discussed above, there were new explicit formulations of separate realms of religion and political life. This also translated into new conceptions of public and private spheres, which had many further effects including new ways of conceiving gender. Individuals came to be seen as complete and separate each in their own ways. Ultimately this awareness of individuality circled back around to the political realm as the idea of individual consent came to be seen as part of the relationship of government. By the mid-eighteenth century, alongside both the increasing understanding of the world scientifically and also the growth of the autonomy of the individual, there grew a glorification of the virtues of reason. The nineteenth century was characterized by romanticism on one hand, and scientific evolutionism on the other, and saw these changing values impact ideas of the highest good. Aesthetics as expressions of divinity or as a goal in itself typified Romanticism,176 and it is in this context that Muller’s cross-cultural focus on religious literature held great import. Rapidly growing scientific knowledge and the formation of ideas of cultural evolution that placed European, Christian culture at the top of the “evolutionary” scale, contributed to feelings of power, even invulnerability, and an eventual sense that people could sustain order on their own rather than relying on God’s

176 Taylor, A Secular Age, 359. 64

benevolence and sustenance.177 In another approach, Talal Asad highlights the development of the idea of “the sacred.” He writes that what was considered “idolatry” or “devil-worship” in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries came to be seen as “fetish” and “taboo” in the long nineteenth century. Freud’s interpretation of these practices as categories of illusion and oppression freed people from believing they had any power.178 Asad notes a result of the changes reviewed here: “Where faith had once been a virtue, it now acquired an epistemological sense. Faith became a way of knowing supernatural objects, parallel to the knowledge of nature (the real world) that reason and observation provided.”179 Two theorists discussed above who were most instrumental in bringing about these changes were Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. Weber popularized the phrase “disenchantment of the world” to describe his perspective of secularization. Weber’s explications of interactions between religion and economy led to a view of a sort of capitalist secularization in which capitalist values would replace religious values. He also furthered the study of comparative religion and the use of scientific method to long- lasting effect. Durkheim, on the other hand, presented a view in which the social construction and maintenance of religion were persuasively displayed. As Hadden writes, "Durkheim, perhaps more than any other founding scholar, took us into the abyss which follows discovery that society itself is the object of collective worship. How can we believe once we have discovered we are the creators of the gods?"180 Jose Casanova provides a helpful metaphor for understanding an effect these changes were having on

177 For a prolonged exploration of this idea, see Taylor, A Secular Age, chapter 10, and specifically p. 300 and 375. 178 Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2003), 35. 179 Ibid., 38-9. 180 Jeffrey K. Hadden, "Toward Desacralizing Secularization Theory," Social Forces 65, no. 3 (1987): 605. 65

individuals’ worldviews: “In spatial-structural terms, we may say that if reality before was structured around one main axis, now a multiaxial space was created”.181

Contemporary Debate over Secularity

This historical exploration of the development of the concepts, perceptions, and functions of secularity mirrors the discussion of the progression of the study of religion, above. Tomoko Masuzawa writes of the ways secularization and religion are mutually implicated: “The modern discourse on religion and religions was from the very beginning

– that is to say, inherently, if also ironically – a discourse of secularization; at the same

time, it was clearly a discourse of othering.”182 Casanova agrees, noting: “To view modern historical transformations from the perspective of secularization means, to a large extent, to view reality from the perspective of religion, since the secular, as a concept, only makes sense in relation to its counterpart, the religious.”183 Explaining how religion and secularity are related is another question, however. The secularization thesis, the idea that modernization negated the need for religion leading to a decline of religious participation, was distilled out of the changes of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Auguste Comte, in the mid-nineteenth century, believed that science and reason would replace belief in the supernatural.184 Some even prophesied the eventual death of religion, such as, most famously, Nietzsche. This idea held a great deal of support until its increasing questioning in the latter decades of the twentieth century. In 1999, Rodney Stark notes, while trying to lay the secularization

181 Casanova, Public Religions in the Modern World, 21. Casanova uses this metaphor to describe a world structured by dual axes of states and markets, but it works equally well more vaguely in order to imagine the change from a world understood religiously to a world with a variety of orienting systems. 182 Tomoko Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions, or, How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 20. 183 Casanova, Public Religions, 20 184 Hadden, "Toward Desacralizing Secularization Theory," 590. 66

theory to rest, that in 1965 David Martin was the first sociologist to reject the secularization thesis.185 Jose Casanova provides a useful examination of the secularization thesis. He shows that three separate topics tend to get confused and obfuscated in discussions of secularization: "secularization as religious decline, secularization as differentiation, and secularization as privatization."186 He accepts the second of these three propositions but rejects the others, arguing specifically that although religion has experienced some level

of privatization over the last couple of centuries, that trend is being reversed following the re-emergence of religion in the public sphere in the 1980s. Jeffrey Hadden also criticizes the lack of systematic inquiry into the secularization theory. When he looks carefully, he finds a “hodgepodge of loosely employed ideas rather than a systematic theory.”187 Changing notions about the study of religion and secularity are constantly seen in academic discourse. Hadden notes:

I used to think it terribly important that every significant figure in the founding generation of social scientists wrote at length about religion. But when one recognizes that they lived in a world that had been dominated by religion for centuries, one can readily ask how could they possibly have written a theory of society without considering religion? What now seems more significant to me is that it has taken so long to consider the social context in which they wrote.188 This is a great example of how ideas that are taken for granted at one point eventually are highlighted as theory continues to be developed.

185 Rodney Stark, "Secularization, R.I.P." Sociology of Religion 60, no. 3 (1999): 254. Stark’s attempt was appreciated by many, but the secularization thesis is still very alive. 186 Casanova, Public Religions, 7. 187 Hadden, "Toward Desacralizing Secularization Theory," 598. 188 Ibid., 591. 67

Most of the theorists whose definitions of secularity have been reviewed here would state that the secularization theory was either wrong, or that it only holds in very specific ways (e.g. Casanova still supports only the second of his three-fold interpretation of the thesis, above). The secularization thesis does still have its defenders, however. Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart’s Sacred and Secular is a well-researched argument in favor of the traditional secularization thesis, “As societies industrialize, almost regardless of what religious leaders and organizations attempt, religious habits will gradually erode, and the public will become indifferent to spiritual appeals.”189 Within the debates over secularization, much is made over whether “the West” is secular in comparison to the rest of the world. This is a stereotype that was once accepted, but now is generally questioned in the face of a good deal of counterevidence. Plenty of popular books in which religion is a component but not the entire focus often continue to propound the Western/secular vs. non-Western/religious dichotomy, such as in Samuel P. Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.190 To summarize, then: contemporary theorists have begun questioning the Enlightenment assumptions that modernization leads to the marginalization of religion. Within the study of religion, the basic secularization thesis has been greatly criticized. Recognizing, however, that there is something of value to be salvaged from the theory, theorists are either retaining some part of it (Casanova), or are delving deep into the term “secular” to show how it permeates worldviews far beyond the religious (Taylor, Turner). Many theorists never address secularization directly, but implicitly assume some differentiation or separation between religious and secular concerns (Chidester, King,

189 Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 7. 190 Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York, NY: Touchstone, 1997). 68

Masuzawa). Some scholars approach secularity in more subtle, yet effective, ways. Ann Taves, for example, “placed those experiencing religion and those explaining experience, ordinary people and elites, in the same narrative and made the interaction between them the focus.”191 This is a challenge to the traditional acceptance of the split between secularized elites and superstitious masses. Taves’ work pushes these boundaries and very usefully explores the boundaries between experience and explanation. The trend towards new ways of addressing the study of non-religion as discussed

in Chapter One brings with it some valuable reflections on secularization theory. Johannes Quack, in “Outline of a Relational Approach to ‘Nonreligion’”, summarizes some of the issues secularization theory has raised:192 First, the secularization theory has a problematic genealogy related to its link to outdated evolutionistic ideas. Second, the secularization theory has problematic political connotations. As Quack notes, “While one side associates secularity and secularism with freedom, democracy, enlightenment, and rationality, the other side considers it Western imperialism and mental colonialism.”193 Third, non-specific approaches to what secularity comprises have led to a superficial either-or logic in its relationship to religion. This is over-simplified and does not allow for the study of possibilities beyond this dichotomy. Lastly, this has created a blind spot to other types of non-religion. These concerns are addressed by both Quack and Lee as they urge a turn toward specificity of definition of secularity along with the corresponding ability to separate from it the study of various types of beliefs that fall into the category of non-belief.

191 Ann Taves, Fits, Trances, & Visions: Experiencing Religion and Explaining Experience from Wesley to James (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999), 4. 192 Johannes Quack, “Outline of a Relational Approach to ‘Nonreligion’,” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 26, no. 4/5 (2014): 443-4. 193 Ibid., 443. 69

Historical Emergence of the Term “Rationalism”

Whereas the American and French Revolutions brought about sudden changes, in other places in the world these changes filtered into the public’s perceptions over time. England is one place where there was an especially large amount of public debate over the roles of religion during the following century. The term “rationalist” first appeared in the seventeenth century, and began being used more frequently in the eighteenth century. However, in the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century, rationalism referred to a specific approach utilizing moral reason, or conscience, as a means of knowing God.194

George Holyoake had tried using the term “rationalism” in a less theistic way around the 1840s, but the religious connotations were still too present and the term did not initially begin to be used in the way that he meant it; rather, it continued to carry the theistic connotations it had held already. Accordingly, Holyoake adopted the term “secularism”

in 1851.195 The use of “secularism” did gain in popularity, and many secularist societies began to form in London and elsewhere. However, there was a struggle brewing in the freethought circles in London in the mid-nineteenth century. George Holyoake and Charles Bradlaugh were two of the most active writers and lecturers on freethought topics, and they each represented a different perspective. Holyoake represented a more gentle approach in that he was interested in talking and thinking about non-theistic approaches to life, although he did not mind leaving space for people who still held liberal religious values. Bradlaugh, on the other hand, was more of a firebrand and was much less conciliatory to those with different views. These two men

194 Joshua Bennett, “A History of Rationalism in Victorian Britain,” Modern Intellectual History 15, no. 1 (Nov. 2015): 64. 195 Bennett, “A History of Rationalism in Victorian Britain,” 81. See also Susan Budd, Varieties of Unbelief: Atheists and Agnostics in English Society 1850-1960 (London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd, 1977), 22. Budd describes Holyoake’s adoption of secularism in the context of London class conflicts and related radicalism. 70

are good examples of one of the historical challenges facing the freethought community, and interestingly, they somewhat tossed approaches back and forth as they navigated the questions of the time.196 In 1851, the same year that Holyoake coined the term secularism,197 he founded the Central Secular Society.198 During the next decade, approximately sixty secular societies were established in England, but they soon coalesced and a few of these continued to lead the freethought movements in England. One of these, the National Secular Society, was led by Bradlaugh beginning in 1866, and

he continued this leadership until 1890, the year before his death.199 Meanwhile, Holyoake transitioned his energies to the Rationalist Press Association, which he helped found in 1885.200 In the exploration of rationalism, it is worth considering why the Rationalist Press Association’s members chose the term “rationalism” for themselves. For instance, why not use Holyoake’s already popular term “secularism”? The term secularism had been adopted widely and a majority of the freethought organizations that formed between 1850-1860 had used that terminology. Additionally, most of them were on the wane. But the most important reason Holyoake and the Rationalist Press Association shied away from the term “secularist” to describe themselves was because that word had become so closely associated with Bradlaugh and his dogmatic approach. As for other possible descriptors, “agnosticism” seems like it would have been a likely contender. However, as Bill Cooke explains in his history of the Rationalist Press Association, "although

196 For further discussions of these men and their relative approaches, see Susan Budd (especially chapter 2), J. Bennett, and Bill Cooke. 197 Bennett, “A History of Rationalism,” 81. 198 Budd, Varieties of Unbelief, 33. 199 Ibid., 42. 200 The story of the Rationalist Press Association, Holyoake, and Bradlaugh is told in Bill Cooke, The Gathering of Infidels: A Hundred Years of the Rationalist Press Association (New York City: Prometheus Books, 2004). 71

agnosticism was held to avoid the dogmatism of atheism, to be philosophically defensible, and acceptable to middle-class members in a way that “theism” was not, … as a result of the clerical counterattacks against the term, agnostics were feeling evermore obliged to defend themselves from the charge that agnosticism meant ignorance.”201 As for the positive reasons why the Rationalist Press Association chose the term “rationalism”, Cook writes that “‘Rationalism’ also allowed the founders of the Rationalist Press Association to focus on what was their chief area of interest. …

Holyoake observed that rationalism ‘advises what is useful to society without asking whether it is religious or not. It makes morality the sole business of life, and declares that, from the cradle to the grave, man should be guided by reason and regulated by science.’ … ‘Rationalism’ could allow the discussion of an issue without it necessarily involving a split between religionists and non-religionists.”202 So, the term rationalism was very specifically chosen in an attempt, in the late-nineteenth century milieu of freethought London, to refer to a non-dogmatic exploration of morality, reason, and science as guiding principles, without requiring a definitive break with religion.

ATHEISM AND SECULARISM IN INDIA

This chapter has been increasingly narrowing down to the specific ideas that will carry us through the rest of this study. This section will begin to shift to the context of these freethought ideas on the Indian subcontinent. As with the initial discussion of unbelief, first, there is a consideration of the wider context of all types of non-religion in a modern context in India. As in Europe, the term that has continued to have the most traction in India is "secularism." Accordingly, the history of secularism in India will be

201 Cooke, The Gathering of Infidels, 24. 202 Ibid., 25. 72

presented. The specificities of the term "rationalism" in India will emerge later, but "secularism" is the term that is most common and accordingly needs to be considered. I do want to note here that this discussion has shifted from considerations of secularity, or perspectives or conditions in which religion is not a primary focus, to secularism, which refers to an ideology or specific intentional approach to the world with a non-religious perspective.

Short History of Atheism in India

Non-religion has been present on the Indian subcontinent for centuries. It has, however, been commonly discussed or conceptualized on a philosophical basis rather than receiving sociological consideration. For instance, Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya presents an overview of atheism in India in its many historical variations. He writes, “Atheism was chosen as the most satisfactory view by such a large number of Indian philosophers because of the same or similar considerations… [These] were broadly three: epistemological, ontological and ethical.”203 In The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, the chapter on India notes that there are two commonly-held perspectives on atheism in India.204 The first viewpoint is that India has a history of atheism that stretches back more than 2000 years.205 The second viewpoint builds on the theory that was mentioned above from Nandy, that of “mental colonialism.” In this viewpoint, the conception of “religion” as an internal experience based on belief in a supernatural entity was introduced to India

203 Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, Indian Atheism: A Marxist Analysis (Calcutta: R.D. Press, 1969), 9. 204 Johannes Quack, “India,” in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, eds. Stephen Bullivant and Michael Ruse (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 651-2. 205 This is argued in Jessica Frazier, “Hinduism” in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, eds. Stephen Bullivant and Michael Ruse (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 367. 73

from outside (western) influences, and that this is what underlies the very idea of “atheism.”206 An overview of the first sense of atheism, one that stretches back over 2000 years on the subcontinent, goes back to non-theistic philosophical schools from the eastern Gangetic plain in the first millennium BCE. Many philosophical systems did not hold deities to be central in their philosophical understandings of the world.207 They were concerned with metaphysical, epistemological, and moral topics, and these included

Samkhya, Vaisesika, Jainism, and Buddhism.208 Atheistic ideas had a presence in major religious texts as skeptics made appearances in the Bhagavad Gita, the Samannaphala Sutta, the Digha Nikaya, and the Ramayana.209 There are also atheist perspectives that make appearances in the Rgveda.210 The appearances of these alternative perspectives in these works indicated that there were strains of thought which questioned the religious philosophies or frameworks. However, possibly the most well-known full “movement” that many Indian atheists claim as their historical heritage is the Lokayatas or “worldly ones”. The Lokayatas were materialists who maintained that the world around us is all that there is; there is no god, and there is no soul. This school of thought was active from the sixth century BCE at least into the medieval period.211 The Kama-sutra describes the Materialist position in the second century CE: “Materialists say: ‘People should not perform religious acts, for their results are in the world to come and that is doubtful. Who

206 Quack, “India,” 652. This presentation of this definition of religion being brought to India from the west was also adopted in Richard King, Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory, India, and the “Mystic East” (New York, NY: Routledge, 1999). 207 Frazier, “Hinduism,” 368. 208 Ibid., 369. 209 Ibid., 369-70. 210 Chattopadhyaya, Indian Atheism, 32-43. 211 Frazier, “Hinduism,” 370. 74

but a fool would take what is in his own hand and put it in someone else’s hand? Better a pigeon today than a peacock tomorrow, and better a copper coin that is certain than a gold coin that is doubtful.’”212 Madhava was elected, in 1331 CE, to be the head of the Smarta order in Mysore territory, and he wrote a book titled Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha.213 This book provided an overview of sixteen systems of philosophy that were current in his lifetime. His first chapter was on Lokayata, and many of his descriptions are similar to critiques the Self

Respect Movement makes almost six hundred years later. For instance, Acharya wrote, “how should men of experienced wisdom engage in the agnihotra and other sacrifices, which can only be performed with great expenditure of money and bodily fatigue, your objection cannot be accepted as any proof to the contrary, since the agnihotra, &c., are only useful as means of livelihood, for the Veda is tainted by the three faults of untruth, self-contradiction, and tautology.”214 This quote contains critiques of the expense of rituals, along with critiques of the logic – or lack thereof – found in the Veda. He also writes, “the three Vedas themselves are only the incoherent rhapsodies of knaves, and to this effect runs the popular saying - The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic's three staves, and smearing oneself with ashes, - Bṛihaspati says, these are but means of livelihood for those who have no manliness nor sense.”215 Here, Acharya calls out the senselessness of the Vedic focus on ritual. Finally, he quotes Brihaspati: “There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in another world, Nor do the actions of the four castes, orders, &c., produce any real effect. The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic's

212 Quoted in Doniger, The Hindus, 185. 213 Madhava Acharya, Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha, trans. E. B. Cowell and A. E. Gough (London: Trubner & Co., Ludgate Hill, 1882), viii, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34125/34125-h/34125-h.htm 214 Ibid., 4. 215 Ibid. 75

three staves, and smearing one's self with ashes, Were made by Nature as the livelihood of those destitute of knowledge and manliness.”216 In this last quote, the caste system (here: varna), priesthood, and religious renunciation are all questioned. Caste is described as producing no effect, and those who make their livelihood via religion are “destitute of knowledge and manliness.” Acharya presented this perspective of Lokayata to show, through his full text, that this was a faulty approach. For us, however, it is useful as a glance into how Lokayata was heard and perceived at the time.

One fact about Hindusim that makes the question of atheism especially complex is that even various Hindu orthodoxies have space for non-theistic philosophies. For instance, Samkhya explains reality as a duality of matter and spirit, Mimamsa explains reality as a semantic structure of sound and meaning, and Advaita Vedanta explains reality as ontological monism.217 As Frazier notes, “Hindu culture contains no universal centre of orthodoxy, in the sense of a doctrine or institutional authority, that people were, by default, expected to follow.”218 Historically there was huge variety in the approaches and practices of what is now called Hinduism across the subcontinent, and other religious traditions that developed, such as Buddhism and Jainism, held non-theism very easily in their philosophical approaches. I discuss the history of religion in India – and religious tolerance – from the Mughal period onward in Chapter Three, and the beginning of that discussion dovetails with this one in that, in times of less centralization and widespread variance of practice and also governance, approaches to religion and religious tolerance varied.

216 Acharya, Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha, 11. 217 Frazier, “Hinduism,” 372-3. 218 Ibid., 374. 76

This section began with a description of two approaches to the history of atheism in India: one that I have just briefly described, and the second of which is perceived via Nandy’s "mental colonialism" concept. I bring this back up to acknowledge that, despite the long history of unorthodox, non-theistic critiques of Indian culture, the influx of pressures from the British empire for Indians to define themselves in ways that went beyond localities and crossed cultural barriers did have substantial effects of Indians' self- perceptions.

Secularism in India

Secularism was not a focus in India until not long before India’s independence from England in 1947.219 As communal tensions rose during the struggle for power in the independence movement, the question of how the national government could most effectively navigate between India’s religious communities was tremendously important. In the early days of independence, secularism was trumpeted as one of the new Indian government’s values. However, the extent to which that goal has been achieved has been questioned. That question, alongside communal clashes that have often ignited around religion, have led to a large amount of scholarship on secularism in India. The focus of this scholarship, however, has been a) what was intended by the writers of India’s constitution when they inserted secularism as a governmental value, and b) how secularism has been upheld in India so far, and what its future might look like. These concerns do not quite get at the questions about secularism that are most pertinent to this study, which are: how do people’s beliefs and experiences factor into these discussions, and what is the role of the non-religious in the Indian cultural landscape?

219 Shabnum Tejani, Indian Secularism: A Social and Intellectual History, 1890-1950 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008), 5. 77

The question of what was intended by the writers of India’s constitution when they inserted secularism as a governmental value, can, however, be useful to historical study. If the specific idea of secularism as it is being discussed here was indeed fairly new to India at that time, then it could be helpful if something can be gleaned about what the writers of the constitution intended. Some authors have, however, pointed out that two of the most accessible viewpoints we have from those at the center of the debates on the creation of a new government had opposite viewpoints from each other. These two individuals are Mohandas K. Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. As S.H. Rudolph wrote in the forward to T.N. Madan’s article “Secularism in its Place,”

Jawaharlal Nehru's secularism rested on the notion that religion is an erroneous view of the cosmos that will yield to more rational understanding as scientific thinking and economic growth advance. This position entails the construction of an edifice of public law that applies to all persons and an edifice of politics that recognizes individual, not group, identities. Mohandas Gandhi's secularism rested on the notions that all religions are true, that they give meaning to the moral life, and that Indian society can be built on a community of religious communities. The policy implications of this position are more responsive to group identities.220 These two approaches have been restated in a reflection on the current state of secularism much later, when Madan himself states, “At best, Indian secularism has been an inadequately defined ‘attitude’ … of ‘goodwill towards all religions’ … in a narrower formulation it has been a negative or defensive policy of religious neutrality on the part of the state.”221 In this example, Gandhi and Nehru represent differing approaches in the emergence of Indian secularism: either a positive or negative set of assumptions (e.g., all religions have some potential truth, or all religions are generally assumed to all be false). Either way, secularism calls for neutrality in response. The neutrality, in this case, is

220 Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, “Preface,” in T. N. Madan, “Secularism in Its Place,” The Journal of Asian Studies 46, no. 4 (Nov. 1987): 747. 221 T. N. Madan, “Secularism in Its Place,” The Journal of Asian Studies 46, no. 4 (Nov. 1987): 750. 78

where we see the relationship between government and religion come to the fore. If, regardless of the positive or negative assumptions behind it, neutrality is the end game, then that neutrality is itself what “secularism” refers to in these contexts. This definition of secularism as "neutrality" differs very clearly from the non- belief that was earlier examined as carving out a place for itself in England, for that was more on the individual level. The same approaches that are referred to as positive or negative in the context of Gandhi's and Nehru's perspectives are the same two approaches that were described earlier as being typified by Holyoake or Bradlaugh. The focus of this study will be on secularism or non-belief on the individual level rather than on questions of how the Indian government interpreted (or interprets) secularism. This study aims to consider the perspectives of the individuals, of the people experiencing the changing perceptions of belief in India in the early twentieth century, as they wrote about themselves in their own words. Throughout this chapter, I have attempted to describe further the foundation on which the rest of this study will build. Religion will continue to be part of this study in that it continues to play a significant role in India, and it was presented as a foil by the Self Respect Movement to its rationalist approach. Non-religion, specifically rationalism, will be a focus because it was a primary goal of the Self Respect Movement. My aim is to maintain a non-reductionist approach to the complexities of both religion and non- religion, while yet discussing approaches or individuals that may have taken a reductionist approach themselves. Some of the questions guiding this dissertation are: what did rationalism mean in the Self Respect Movement, and how was that specific to the Indian milieu? How was rationalism expressed by members of the Self Respect Movement?

79

Chapter 3: “If Religion Destroys the Wisdom in the Society” Individuals’ Experiences of Rationalism and Non-Religion

Religion is the sum of the rules related to cooperative living and code of conduct needed for a society. The Self Respect Movement is not against such a harmonious society. Even if it is said that religion is needed to reach god we will not interfere. It is after all an individual's personal affair. But, if religion destroys the wisdom in the society, if it endangers the self-respect, if humanity is differentiated as high and low, if it brings disunity and demolishes freedom, our Self Respect Movement will not leave it.222 – E.V.R.

This chapter takes a comparative approach to considering what differentiated the

Self Respect Movement from other movements in India, especially in relation to religion. My goal in this chapter is to determine this differentiation through reading the perspectives of individuals who wrote about their experiences or opinions as they related to religion in early twentieth century India. There are two primary sections in this chapter. The first half of this chapter considers writings of individuals who contributed to the Self Respect Movement journal Revolt. This section allows us to find what themes there are in the perspectives of individuals who participated in the Self Respect Movement. These themes include reason and rationalism, a utilitarian analysis of whether religion serves the majority of the population, the importance of education and a rejection of ignorance, a turning to history for verification or validation, a global awareness, and the perception of a link between change and progress. The second section compares writings of three reformers who were prominent and influential: Iyothee Thass, B.R. Ambedkar, and E.V. Ramasami. These reformers struggled with the role of religion in the context of Indian culture and its need for reform, but they took somewhat different paths in their attempts to come to terms with this. This section allows us some perspective on what set E.V.R.’s approach apart. We see here that his approach was essentially

222 Ramasami, Collected Works, 71. 80

rationalist, relying on the rejection of assumptions or unexamined traditions. He held an especially functional critique of the role religion played in society.

CONTRIBUTORS: EXPERIENCING RELIGION

Religious reform was a common concern at the forefront of the Self Respect Movement’s reform agenda. In this section, I turn to writings by individuals who contributed to Self Respect Movement journals. These writings provide a window into priorities and lived experiences concerning religion. The voices I quote in this chapter are preserved in written form in articles, essays, or speeches published in a journal named Revolt from November 7, 1928 through January 31, 1930.223 This journal was released weekly, published in English, and was edited by E.V.R. along with one other person; the early sub-editor was S. Ramanathan, and later the sub-editorship passed to S. Guruswami.224 This section turns to Revolt in order to better understand how the contributors were writing about religion in south India at the time. The Self Respect Movement already had a very successful Tamil-language periodical, Kudi Arasu. In the introductory article to Revolt, the editors explained their reason for establishing this English-language alternative: “Our adversaries… would draw us to other fields which the ‘Kudi Arasu’ cannot reach. They would conduct their campaign in the foreign tongue. The need has arisen therefore for us to extend the sphere of our operation and speak the English language so as to obtain a wider hearing for our

223 This section relies entirely on articles from Revolt for content. There are two ways that these articles were accessed. The first point of access was research at the Periyar Rationalist Library and Research Center in 2009, where I photographed original documents including 260 pages of preserved copies of Revolt from 1928-1930. Since that time, the Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam published a collection of many of the articles from Revolt in pdf or booklet form. Revolt is the only source used in this section. All quotes are directly quoted from original articles. 224 Revolt: A Radical Weekly in Colonial Madras. eds. V. Geetha and S.V. Rajadurai. (Chennai: Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam, 2015). These two sub-editors were widely influential in the Self Respect Movement. 81

message.”225 The Self Respect Movement and E.V.R. were very supportive of Tamil, and the majority of their journals, speeches, pamphlets, and reform work took place in the local language.226 The intent for this English-language periodical was to reach a further audience by expanding into English language printing.

Revolt and Religion

There are a handful of themes that recur in Revolt. The journal aimed to be both informative and also to actively inspire change and encourage cultural shifts. Themes that

emerge from Revolt include: reason and rationalism, religion as contemporaneously practiced in south India and how it did not serve the majority of the population, the role of education and a rejection of ignorance, and a reliance on history for verification or validation. The articles also demonstrate a global awareness on the part of their authors. Revolt’s content was primarily original submissions, but the editors also interspersed writings from direct contributors with related articles from other periodicals.

Reason and Rationalism

The writers in Revolt regularly and explicitly relied on reason in discussions of religion. Reason was regularly touted as both a goal and a tool. At times this took the form of contrasting reason with faith, such as when Mr. S.S. Bharati wrote in the Nov. 17, 1929 issue, “The injuries inflicted by the soldiers of Reason are bound at worst to be slight, and they always heal up quickly whereas the wounds caused by the captains of creeds are often deep, and most mortally poisoned, Faith is proudly offensive, while

Reason is, ever on the defensive.”227 For one of its outside-source articles, the editors of

225 “Ourselves,” Revolt, November 7, 1928, 1. 226 Bernard Bate notes that E.V.R. was known for speaking in common Tamil as part of his mass outreach and goal of solidarity. Bate, Tamil Oratory and the Dravidian Aesthetic, 66-67. 227 S.S. Bharati, “The ‘Revolt’ at its Work,” Revolt, November 17, 1929, 5. 82

Revolt chose to reprint the “Broadcasting Address” by the Secretary of the Rationalist Press Association, delivered at the London Station. This article stated, “Reason and faith are sometimes spoken of as if there were a great gulf fixed between them. That by no means follows. They are both mental processes. The only difference is that faith is tentative and incomplete knowledge - a groping in the twilight. Reason seeks by patient research to know the whole truth and rejoice in the sunlight.”228 In October of 1929, The Bombay Chronicle published an article about the rising Rationalism in India. In that

article, they mentioned Revolt, and in November an editor of Revolt wrote a reflective response in which he noted, “Coming nearer home, we are ourselves astonished at the very radical views expressed by our correspondents on vital questions of religion. They certainly betoken a real ferment in the minds of our educated men and a strong desire to appeal from authority to Reason.”229 It is interesting that even the editor seemed surprised at the radical views on religion of Revolt’s correspondents. In these examples, reason was presented as healthy for society, was described as allowing individuals to know the truth and allow clarity, and it was noted how much Revolt’s correspondents were turning to reason. Much of the time, however, the reader finds in the pages of Revolt that, rather than writing about reason, the contributors are using reason in ways that were challenging to tradition. For instance, “We are told to investigate the bible for ourselves, and at the same time informed that if we come to the conclusion that it is not the word of God, we must assuredly be damned. Under such circumstances, if we believe this, investigation is impossible. Whoever is held responsible for his conclusions cannot weigh the evidence with impartial scales.”230

228 “The Gospel of Reason,” Revolt, March 27, 1929, 163. 229 “Rationalism in India,” Revolt, November 10, 1929, 422. 230 “Religion of the Future,” Revolt, 21 July 1929, 294. 83

Revolt’s support of reason was closely linked with its value of rationalism. On Nov. 17, 1929, around the time of the first anniversary of their publication, the editors of Revolt published a piece called “Ourselves”. This mirrored the title of their very first introductory article published Nov. 7, 1928 (and quoted above). In this introspective article, they wrote: “Ours has come to be, by the natural course of circumstance, perhaps the first journal in India to wed itself to a deliberate advocacy of rationalism. Though the Revolt was chiefly intended for the task of social reconstruction on a basis of equality and justice, we have come to the painful but inevitable conclusion that the task of thoroughly revolutionizing an age-long system in a country of antiquated culture and habits, cannot be done effectively without taking a rationalistic view of life.”231 Clearly, the promotion of rationalism was a central goal of Revolt. In August 1929, they published: “Unless the people cultivate a rational method of thinking there is no possibility of achieving any fruitful results. When once the people begin to think for themselves then there is the sight of progress.”232 This professed link between rationalism and progress was very clear. A regularly discussed alternative to rationalism was superstition, and religion was regularly criticized in Revolt for being man-made rather than divinely originated. At times the word “superstition” was used specifically, such as when P.C. Chidambaram Pillay expressed his opinion that “…the Tamil Saivite public are vastly ignorant of what religion is and what their temples are for, and what is more significant, that Tamilian worship is based purely upon superstition.”233 In July, Revolt published

A new understanding of the values of life, a genuine feeling of resentment against those who would have the accident of birth accepted as the one and only criterion of personal worth, a sincere recognition of the fact that much of what passes for

231 “Ourselves,” Revolt, November 17, 1929, 7. 232 “Why Preach Atheism I,” Revolt, August 4, 1929, 305-6. 233 P.C. Chidambaram Pillay, “Saivite Mentality and Self-respect,” Revolt, May 1, 1929, 205. 84

religion and piety is nothing short of gross and grotesque superstition foisted and feeding upon the ignorance and credulity of the unsophisticated - these are the outstanding features of the awakened popular mind of the present day.234 This quote displays another commonality: discussion of ignorance often accompanied discussion of superstition. At other times, religion was referred to as a “spell”. In its first issue, Revolt asked, “How does the spell work and how shall we break it? That is the investigation to which this journal will be devoted.”235 “The spell” here referred to Hinduism, caste, and the myriad social constraints and inequalities that persisted. Revolt was certainly founded with the intent to question these cultural habits. Elsewhere, Revolt stated: “Commonsense tells every man or woman that religion is not any commodity dropped from the high heavens. It tells that religion is merely a code of laws enacted by a certain community of human beings, for the purpose of leading a peaceful life in this mundane world. … Granting this then as an indisputable fact, religious differences and opinions spring from the respective capacities of the individual’s understanding and interpretation.”236 For the contributors to Revolt, reason was often either the goal, or the preferred tool to use, in considering the ills of the day and how they could be addressed.

Interest in the Good for the Many

Writers in Revolt often pointed out the ways that religion did not support the majority of the population. This was most obvious when considering the confluence of Hinduism and caste. On April 10, 1929, a published excerpt from the Self Respect Conference presidential address of Mr. A. Ramasami Mudaliar professed:

234 “Lessons from Bengal,” 21 July 1929, in Revolt – A Radical Weekly in Colonial Madras, eds. V. Geetha and S.V. Rajadurai (Chennai: Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam), 202-3. 235 “Ourselves,” Revolt, November 7, 1928, 1. 236 “Religion in Danger?,” Revolt, May 22, 1929, 225. 85

I ask how you can justify a system which says ‘In the holy of holies, you can disallow a human being entering’… I trust I am a religious man. No conference, no resolution can make me give up that conviction. No leaders, no election prospects can make me give it up. I am a believer in religion. I believe in the Vedanta system. I have tried in my own humble way to understand something of religion; what does it preach? ‘Man is the image of God; that in every person is that resplendent Being.’ If you are born in that very Vedanta principle, how comes it, I ask, that you can reconcile your religion, your faith in God with the distinctions which Varnashrama Dharma impose?237 It is worth noting that this is an example of an argument from an individual who considered himself religious, and who was not suggesting the dismantling or rejection of

religion. Instead, he was looking for a way forward within his religious beliefs, but one that provided respect for every person. At times, in the pages of Revolt, there was a strong criticism of simply what the author observed. For instance, in an article reviewing a Saivite gathering at which it was hoped that some reform measures would arise, Revolt reported, “Saivism is said to be acceptable for all states of society and for all time. … And today the ardent followers of this religion are the most intolerant religionists of the world.”238 The article went on to express disappointment at the lack of reforms adopted at the meeting, despite the Saivite claims to want to be more inclusive.239 At other times, social critiques were accompanied by a criticism directed toward the government and how it allowed Hinduism to exclude so many of India’s population. In an article titled “Religion in Danger?” it was noted that “The Vedas is again [sic] hypocritically said to be written in a language delivered by the Almighty Himself. It is supposed to be written in an unspoken dead language, which

237 “Presidential Address,” Revolt, April 10, 1929, 183. 238 “The Saivites Meet,” Revolt, April 10, 1929, 177-78. 239 It is worth noting here that that the Tamil Saivites and the Self Respect Movement had a particularly fraught relationship. The Saivites had been fundamental to the early rise of the Dravidian Movement, but then struggled with E.V.R.’s attacks on their religion. The two groups at times held uneasy alliances, and at times were overtly at odds. For a good overview, see Ravi Vaitheespara, “Re-Inscribing Religion as Nation: Naveenar-Caivar (Modern Saivites) and the Dravidian Movement,” South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 35, no. 4: 767-786. 86

should be heard and read only by a divine-descended population of 3% of the ‘Hindus’”240 The lack of access mentioned here was a recurring complaint. Elsewhere in the article, the writer suggested, “Unless we make use of the foreign Raj to establish a new order of things, conducive to the formation of a healthier society both mentally and physically, we are sure to be trodden underneath the iron heels of orthodoxy.”241 Because Hinduism was perceived as having such a strong hold on Indian society, and because Hinduism was also perceived as contributing to so much inequality, there were multiple

instances in Revolt in which the writers suggested that the British needed to take the lead on instituting equality through legal measures. Occasionally, writers were much more aggressive in their criticisms of how religion supported the increasingly polarizing role of caste in India. In May 1929, Mr. Bahuleyan wrote, “It has been proved beyond doubt that caste system [sic] is a satanic institution founded upon a number of slokas just to allow the Brahmin to exploit mercilessly the dumb millions of the country.”242 There was clearly a large amount of variance in the positions of the writers in regard to their views on religion, ranging from those who were looking for solutions within their religious traditions, to those who found many religious traditions to be very negative and unhealthy. Some contributors to Revolt called only for the eradication of the practice of caste, whereas some contributors called for the rejection of religion outright and everything that came with it. In the presidential address at the First Self-Respect Volunteers’ Conference in Pattukottai, Mr. S. Guruswami (who was also the sub-editor of Revolt) wrote:

The test of our courage lies in our capacity to raise a standard of revolt against religion. It has enslaved the people and immersed them in the quagmire of misery.

240 “Religion in Danger?,” Revolt, May 22, 1929, 225-6. 241 Ibid., 226. 242 Mr. Bahuleyan, “Will the Caste go?,” Revolt, May 29, 1929, 235. 87

… I am not unaware of the many difficulties that shall dog our way when we begin to fight religion in right earnest. The opposition shall be from a near quarter, from our parents, from our own kith and kin. … Secondly the opposition is to be expected from the Government itself… The government are not unaware of the fact that with the dawn of social enlightenment a potent desire for political freedom is sure to follow suit and their recent enactment in the Assembly aimed against religious opposition is a pawn on the dice.243 Authors did not always agree on whether there could be equality for all people within religion in India at the time, or whether the rejection of religion altogether would be required, nor did they agree about whether change needed to involve a confluence of religion and politics or whether more pointed change to specific social ends should be the goal. There was, however, a consistent message in Revolt: that religion in India contributed to a lack of equality among its population. Revolt campaigned for revolutionary change, and gave a voice to many who wanted to express their thoughts about it.

Education to Allay Ignorance

Articles in Revolt often suggested that general ignorance among the population was to blame for the religious abuses in south Indian society. Accordingly, many called for a governmental role in mandating access to education. Mr. Bahuleyan, for instance, praised the offering of education to a wider population by the British, and expressed his belief that this would lead people away from Hinduism: “The religion of ‘Rama Raj’ has come to a close when ‘Sudras’ were forbidden by law from receiving education. Fortunately, British Raj has set in with education for all. … They [non-Brahmin Hindus] are slowly waking up from their age long slumber caused by the mesmerism of Hindu religion, and are realizing their deplorable condition in society. They have begun to think

243 S. Guruswami, “The First Self-respect Volunteers Conference, Pattukottai, Presidential Address” Revolt, May 29, 1929, 240. 88

about their liberties and rights in the country and are becoming conscious of their great might and wonderful possibilities which lie hidden in them.”244 Comments about the role of the British government in India were often positive in the pages of Revolt245, but there were certainly exceptions. Mr. Adam Gowans Whyte expressed his belief that British policies actually contributed to the problem in a reprint of his article for the Rationalist Annual of 1928, writing, “Our charge against the British administration is not so much that it has drained the economic resources of the country but that it has connived at the

perpetuation and accentuation of the religious thralldom of the people by adopting the policy of ‘religious neutrality’.”246 The contributors to Revolt perceived “ignorance” both as the culprit causing societal ills, and also as one of the societal ills itself. For instance, E.V.R. wrote in Revolt, “The feelings towards religion and the attitude towards God have been built on the foundations of ignorant belief and blind faith.”247 Opinions about the role of education as an alternative to ignorance in relation to religion were sometimes accompanied by calls for action. In response to a coming election, Revolt published: “Is it not religion that is responsible for the rottenness of the minds of Satyamurtis and Ramachandras [Brahmin Congressmen from Madras – editors]? … Here is then, the duty of the self-respecters to see that religious education is not given the least in the state aided schools. This can be effected only by sending self-respecters to the legislative and administrative bodies.”248 Similarly, a contributor named D.V. Pradhan wrote “It is high time that a start in the

244 Mr. Bahuleyan, “Will the Caste go?,” Revolt, May 29, 1929, 235. 245 E.V.R. often argued that British rule was preferable to the dominance of Brahmins in Indian society. 246 Adam Gowans Whyte, “Spirituality,” Revolt, Nov. 7, 1928, 2. The Rationalist Annual of 1928 was published by the Rationalist Press Association, discussed in Chapter Two. 247 “Duties of a Revolutionary,” December 5 & 12, 1928, in Revolt – A Radical Weekly in Colonial Madras, 116. 248 “Self-Respect and the Elections,” Revolt, May 29, 1929, 233. 89

interest of the Nation and world is made to abolish all the educational institutions that are being conducted on communal and religious grounds and are spreading the infection of so called religion.”249 These writers express clear concerns about the deleterious effects of teaching religion in schools alongside general education. They argue that debasing religious prejudices distort the strengthening qualities of education. An author named Ritus wrote:

Is Religion in danger? No. The hypocrisy of religion is in danger. The pillage in the name of God is in danger. The deception practiced in the name of Religion is in danger. The danger point will be reached only when the ignorant high castes come to know what religion is and how they have been duped for centuries, and also when the ignorant masses are taught what true religion is and realize the impositions of priests and Brahmin pujaris.250 S. Guruswami - the sub-editor of Revolt - upheld education for Tamil youth both in order to give them a chance to keep in good standing in terms of a comparative awareness of education in other parts of the world, but also to give the upcoming generations the opportunity to be mentally strong. He wrote

It is really amusing to find our youths discussing incessantly about the Lost Lamoria and determining the extent and limits of Tamilagam, while other nations are discovering lands in the Antarctic. I plead therefore in right earnest for liberal and rational education of our youths to equip them with the strength to fight the battles of life boldly and save themselves from servile beggary.251

History

The theme of “history” was tremendously important as Revolt’s contributors examined the issues they found important, explained their views, and suggested solutions. As they navigated the changing dynamics of the aging British empire and as the quest for

249 D.V. Pradhan, “Religious Instruction in Primary Schools,” Revolt, August 18 1929, 326. 250 Ritus, “Easy Solutions,” Revolt, July 21, 1929, 293. 251 S. Guruswami, “The First Self-respect Volunteers Conference, Pattukottai, Presidential Address” Revolt, May 29, 1929, 240. 90

home-rule grew, the Indian population looked to history as they increasingly expressed their developing sense of self. At times, contributors used history to explain how society had reached its current iteration. At the Self-respecters Volunteers Conference, Pattukottai, Mr. P.S. Chandapani gave the reception address, some of which was printed in Revolt. He wrote, “The political, social and religious conditions prevailing in our country today are such that are derogatory to our self-respect. We will be only too glad to end them. But we try to put up

with them, because they are ancient.”252 At other times, history is cited as evidence rather than as a cause of current conditions. Mr. L. Govind Ram Khana wrote, for instance, “Even a slight insight into Indian History will show what disastrous effects this caste system has had on the political life of the Hindus.”253 And in another variation: “History tells us that many religions have died a premature death, and experience also tells us that many are dying little by little; which again goes to prove that religion is only man made.”254 In the nineteenth century, philology gained widespread popularity as an approach to understand the history of cultures in addition to languages. K.M. Balasubramaniam utilized evidence found in the history of specific words, for instance, writing,

Let the Tamil world remember that our ancient society was essentially democratic in the real sense of the term. … It was only after the advent of the Aryans that a class of untouchables [sic] were created and forbidden entry into these temples. Prior to that we learn from such works as Pattinappaalai that a temple was known as ‘Ambalam’ which literally means a public place.255

252 P. S. Dandapani, “The Self-respect Volunteers Conference, Pattukottai, Reception Address” Revolt, June 5, 1929, 249. 253 “Wanted: A Social Revolution,” November 24, 1929, in Revolt – A Radical Weekly in Colonial Madras, 275. 254 “Religion in Danger?,” Revolt, May 22, 1929, 225. 255 K. M. Balasubramaniam, “Temple Entry in the Tamil Country,” Revolt, June 30, 1929, 267. 91

Balasubramaniam argued that the authentic past of Hindu temples was one in which the temples were open to all. He campaigned for the (re-)opening of Hindu temples in what he argued would be a return to their original function as public spaces for all people. Reliance on linguistic evidence, in addition to turning to ancient texts for information about how society functioned in the past, were approaches taken by many contributors to Revolt. P. Chidambaram Pillai, who often signed his articles merely as P.C.P, turned to the Manimekalai epic when he wrote,

During the beginning of the Christian era or thereabout, during the last Sangham period, during what is known as the Augustan period of Tamil literature, during these days Saivism was a very tolerant religion, as were Buddhism and Jainism which existed side by side and in friendly rivalry, with it. This is evident from the glorious epic of Manimekalai where it is described how discourses on all religious faiths were given by their respective followers in the same hall for the benefit of the masses without any of the bitterness at all that we now find in religious controversies.256 P. Chidambaram Pillai cites history as evidence when he wrote, “These were all religious endowments and were all public. … These altars, idols and temples came into existence at the behest of others than Brahmins; they were originally intended for the masses; including aborigines: there was no discrimination, no distance indented as between caste and outcaste, touchables and untouchables. That is what history tells us.”257 In the same article, he went on to explore the repercussions of Act XX of 1863, which passed control of religious institutions and their public endowments from British control to the management of the traditions to which they belonged. He concluded that “The government when it transferred these religious institutions to the ‘creed’ of Hinduism, omitted to define who a ‘Hindu’ was. This failure to define a Hindu led to the consolidation of Brahminical power and prestige and to the exclusion of the major

256 P.C.P., “Saivism – An Exposure,” Part 3, Revolt, September 1, 1929, 340. 257 P. Chidambaram Pillai, “The Right of Temple Entry,” Part 4, Revolt, August 11, 1929, 315. 92

portion of the Hindu population from their privileges of a Hindu citizenship.”258 Whether interpreting the past as evidence of how society had changed, or as confirmation of what was authentic and should be re-instated, Revolt’s contributors were very interested in history and how it could reflect on their current milieu.

Global Awareness

A pronounced theme in the pages of Revolt is the global awareness of its contributors. Clearly this population was somewhat unusual in south India from 1928

through 1930 because they were familiar enough with English to write articles in that language. It is safe to say that they had a higher level of education than the average south Indian individual at the time. This educational level was demonstrated not only in the language of correspondence, but also in the wide scope of authors who are quoted and in the number of writings from around the world that are discussed in Revolt’s pages. A survey of the articles shows quotes from people from many other countries, times, and cultures. These include: Aristotle, Hegel, Goethe, Mustapha Kemal Pasha, Burke, Voltaire, Lord Byron, Abbe Dubois, Galileo, Einstein, Newton, Ingersoll, Tennyson, Bentham, and Poe. Revolt also regularly reprinted articles from the British periodical The Freethinker and other publications from the Rationalist Press Association.259 In an article from January 1929, the philosophy of Hegel was utilized in an analysis of the Indian National Congress’ stance of non-cooperation:

We wonder if Congressmen ever read Hegel. The German philosopher thought that truth had two sides, one opposed to the other. … The essence of reality was,

258 P. Chidambaram Pillai, “The Right of Temple Entry,” 28 July, 4, 11, & 25 Aug, 20 & 27 Oct, 1929 in Revolt – A Radical Weekly in Colonial Madras, 347. 259 This list was compiled through reading Revolt. M.S.S. Pandian (in Brahmin and Non-Brahmin) and A.R. Venkatachalapathy have also written about the varieties of international sources that E.V.R. read and dispersed. A.R. Venkatachalapathy, “Periyar: A Prophet from the South,” Tamil Characters (New Delhi: Pan Macmillan India, 2019). Accessed on Kindle. 93

to him, such a synthesis of opposites. Thus, Being and Non-Being were synthesized by him into Becoming which was the unity, hence the ultimate truth. … Unconsciously though it may be, the Congress veterans are treading in the footsteps of the redoubtable German Philosopher. Every session of the Congress is intended merely for the manufacture of the special brand of unity. The latest achievement is quite characteristic and thoroughly Hegelian. Dominion status is the thesis, Independence is the anti-thesis and Non-co-operation is the synthesis, which is the unity. Quite startling, is it not? Success is assured for the Calcutta brand.260 Elsewhere in Revolt, contributors brought up examples from other parts of the world to use as either inspiration or contrasts to what they saw around them. An author named

Satyasadhu hoped for deep dedication to the cause of non-brahmin uplift when he wrote, “Are the present peacemakers of communal conflicts able, like Gordon in the Sudan to say, ‘I declare, if I could stop this slave traffic I would willingly be shot this night’ or with John Knox, ‘God give me Scotland, or I die’?”261 At times this global awareness took the form of historical familiarity, and at times it was manifest in awareness of current events or trends happening concurrently around the world. Mr. A. Ramasami Mudaliar wrote, for instance, “If people could not realize the great evil they were creating in the country by intermixing religion in social matters, if they had not got the grim determination like Mustapha Kemal Pasha in Turkey to separate the spiritual from the secular matters, then they could not be said to be true representatives of the Hindu religion which they professed to be.”262 And, at other times, contributors used quotes from diverse sources in the process of self-reflection. In the Presidential address by Mr. N. Sivaraj at the Madura-Ramnad 2nd Non-Brahmin Youth Conference, he said “As to my being worthy of it [the presidentship], I will content

260 “Unity Achieved,” January 2, 1929 in Revolt – A Radical Weekly in Colonial Madras, 20-21. 261 Satyasadhu, “The Nonbrahmin,” Revolt, February 13, 1929, 116. 262 Mr. A. Ramasami Mudaliar, “Latest Social Developments,” April 24, 1929, in Revolt – A Radical Weekly in Colonial Madras, 163. 94

myself with stating in the words of Goethe, ‘It is a great mistake to fancy oneself greater than one is, to value oneself at less than one is worth. [sic]’” 263 For the purposes of this dissertation, the theme of global awareness is most relevant when reflecting on how contributors wrote or thought about religion. D.V. Pradhan suggested that there was evidence of a world-wide move toward the rejection of religion when he wrote:

Can we be free and use our reasoning for the betterment of India? What should we do to break the shackles of religion and give full play to our natural faculties? The answer is simple enough. We should look to every day happenings in other parts of the world. The whole world is astir to weed out religion from public life and its endeavoring may have practically made it a question of individual observance. Russia has frankly gone in for Atheism. It is not question of toleration with the religion [sic]. It is strictly banned and is a bar to any public employment.264 Miss Gnanam wrote a fictional account of a conference of the gods, at which Mohammed, Jesus, Buddha, Vishnu, and Shiva were present, among others. In the story, by the end of the conference, Buddha admitted, “I told them [the people] point blank that it is not worth while to wrangle with one another, for the silly reason of god or religion. I told them that if at all humanity should be brought together, it could be done only by forgetting everything about god or gods. … My mission, though discouraged by the Brahmin element, is now bearing its fruits in the far-off Russia, America, Turkey and England.”265 This is an interesting example both because Miss Gnanam writes the story so that Buddha takes some of the responsibility for the active presence of non-belief in India, but also because in the end he professes the impression that non-belief is currently making the most headway in Russia, America, Turkey, and England.

263 N. Siva Raj, “2nd Non-Brahmin Youth Conference, Presidential Address,” Revolt, September 15, 1929, 359. 264 D.V. Pradhan, “Religious Instruction in Primary Schools,” Revolt, August 18 1929, 325. 265 Miss Gnanam, “The Conference of Gods,” Revolt, July 21, 1929, 295. 95

Revolt not only reflected a global awareness of its contributors, but it also furthered the global awareness of its audience through responses or reports on global events. Revolt published regular updates on events in Afghanistan, China, Russia, Turkey, and elsewhere. When King Amanulla abdicated the throne in Afghanistan, for instance, Revolt published an article with the suggestion that he would continue on in his reform work. The article presented this with great respect, suggesting, “There has scarcely been another King in the history of the world besides Gautama Buddha who

could rise to such heights of benevolent sympathy for the suffering of people at large. … Amanulla leads humanity in its struggle against the tyranny of established tradition and the sway of age long superstition sanctified as religion. He is the hope of the rising East which has cast off its spiritual slumber and has awakened to a sense of its secular rights.”266 Here we see reference to the rising East, a focus on secular rights, a struggle against tradition, and a suggested correlate between Amanulla and Buddha! In only its second issue, Revolt published an analysis of a trend in the world of religion: “To-day religion presents itself in two outstanding forms, widely differing in details, but each clinging firmly to the broken reed of authority: Rome on the one side, Protestant Bible-worship on the other. The Fundamentalist movement, which has been of late years, and still is, in full swing in the United States, is a religious phenomenon at once amusing and alarming. It is amusing because of its singular faith in human stupidity; alarming because it is trying hard, and with much success, to stifle human thought.”267 This perspective is clearly influenced by what was happening on the other side of the world at the time. Revolt’s global perspective illustrated that the Self Respect Movement found inspiration from cultures world-wide casting off religion and moving toward a

266 “Reformer or King?,” January 23, 1929, in Revolt – A Radical Weekly in Colonial Madras, 585-6. 267 “The Fundamentalist Menace,” Revolt, November 7, 1928, 5. 96

more rationalist reliance on reason and acceptance of non-belief. Evidence of trends from around the world that aligned with the Self-Respect Movement’s goals was frequently discussed in this weekly publication.

Change and Progress

As the title of the journal implicitly suggests, Revolt’s contributors regularly praised and worked for change. At times through fiery rhetoric, at times through re- printing progressive articles from elsewhere, and at times through steadily keeping the focus on equality and human rights, those who wrote for Revolt aimed to effect transformation on the South Indian society in which they lived. In February of 1929, Pothi wrote a list titled “What does the Revolt revolt against?”. There were twenty points on this list, but five of them related to religion or progress. These five points were: “The Revolt revolts against the tyranny of authority in all the spheres of life. It revolts against scriptural suppression of Reason and sacerdotal exploitation of ignorance. … It revolts against both, Heaven and Hell, both God and Satan. It revolts against the suppression of Man by God as well as by Machine. … It revolts against the hypocrisy of present-day religion and the immorality of conventional ethics.”268 The concept of revolt was itself a powerful one. Similarly, revolutions around the world often provided writers inspiration. In an article titled “Revolt and Progress”, Srimati G. Sumati Bai wrote, “Revolt leads to Progress and revolutions heads reformation. Renaissance and reformation but follow in the wake of revolution, the sign of awakened life. To this history bears ample testimony.”269 This article went on to use ancient Rome, the French revolution, the

268 Pothi, “What does the ‘Revolt’ Revolt Against?,” Revolt, February 13, 1929, 115. 269 Srimati G. Sumati Bai, “Revolt and Progress,” Revolt, November 3, 1929, 414. 97

American revolution, and changes in China and Russia as examples. This author also pointed to examples from Indian religious history, writing, “Here in India as far back as two thousand years, he whom we call ’The Enlightened’ today was a rebel of his day. His Buddhism was primarily a campaign of revolt against priest-craft, caste, tyranny and mass ignorance. …. The birth of the Sikh religion in the 15th century was again a rebellion led by Baba Nanak against ‘the priesthood and caste exclusiveness of Hinduism.’ In all fields - be it religion, philosophy, art or science - Rebels have been the pioneers of all Progress.”270 Authors encouraged readers to work for societal change in many ways. Sometimes it was through taking action on a personal level. For instance, in a review of the Jat Pat Torak Conference, the author wrote, “…we have a mind not only to ask the self-respecters, as far as possible, not to give their castes in the forthcoming Census, but also to declare that they are not Hindus but that they are either Self-Respecters, Rationalists or Free thinkers.”271 R. Viswanathan wrote a passionate call for change: “Young brothers and sisters! Within you lie asleep great powers to conquer the universe. Wake them all. Revolt against all the forces that caged you for so long. Abolish the cruel and debasing caste system. Be under the firm belief, that by destroying priesthood you are not becoming a sinner but savior of mankind. Convert all the temples into workshops. Get freedom to think and to act and rush yourself into the world’s broad field of battle.”272 Another radical voice proclaimed, “It is a waste of time for the reformer to

270 Ibid. 271 “Caste (Jat Pat Torak Conference),” January 19, 1930, in Revolt – A Radical Weekly in Colonial Madras, 280. 272 R. Viswanathan, “Persecutions by Clergymen,” Revolt, September 29, 1929, 371. 98

trace every evil to its individual source; the whole edifice will have to be pulled down in the interest of the National economy.”273 Contributors to Revolt adopted many approaches to their critiques. This author addressed the challenge of reforming religious belief: “Religions, major and minor, associations big and small, Sangams old and new have all failed in reforming Hinduism. The reason was their fear to approach the desirability of the conception of god, which is so inextricably connected with society and its customs.”274 On the other hand, some

authors encouraged change incorporating a religious context; casting religion off was not the only approach advocated in the pages of Revolt. P.C.P. wrote, “If the intellectual Saivite wants a philosophy and a religion both of which he has lost, let him make a new system, a new philosophy and new religion out of the Self-respect movement. … Science must progress, philosophy must progress. Let Saivite genius which founded that universal religion Saiva Siddhantam, found another, suited to the times, the spirit and the mood of the community.”275 The diversity of approaches to change, revolt, or radical reconsideration is not surprising in that there were so many people contributing articles to Revolt. Revolt’s editors consistently demonstrated their commitment to provide an open arena for discussion of different perspectives.

Reflections on Revolt

The themes that appear in Revolt include a focus on reason and rationalism, a utilitarian analysis of whether religion serves the majority of the population, the importance of education and a rejection of ignorance, a turning to history for verification or validation, a global awareness, and a link between change and progress. This section

273 “Exposure” Revolt, February 13, 1929, 114. 274 “Why Preach Atheism?, II,” Revolt, August 11, 1929, 313. 275 P.C.P., “Saivism – An Exposure,” Part 2, Revolt, August 25, 1929, 335-6. 99

explores examples of how contributors to Revolt wrote about religion, either through interpreting the world around them, or directly through personal experience. These themes show up repeatedly in Revolt, and each theme holds much variation within it. Reason, for instance, was suggested as both a tool and as the goal. Deliberate advocacy of rationalism was stated as an intent of the publication itself. Reason and rationalism were aligned with common sense, and were contrasted with faith and superstition. When writing about the common good, there was regular discussion of questions of access within Hinduism, and the exclusion of non-Brahmins from full participation. Those who felt the British administration helped to improve access were opposed by some who felt they had helped to restrict access. The question of language was important to Revolt’s contributors, along with many progressive causes. Many felt that the convergence of religion and politics was a problem and that the two needed to have increased separation. Although education was praised, religious-based education was criticized. The themes of history and of globalism had some similarities; both were discussed in terms of evidence and also as inspiration. And, finally, the theme of change and progress showed a strong correlation between the two concepts, accompanied often by calls for action. Very often, writers were urging the adoption of some change in activity or the adoption of new, tangible approaches that would change the ways individuals related to the religious contexts in which they lived. These perspectives or practices would set adherents aside from the general population. Whether it was the adoption of a consistently questioning attitude, support for mandating educational reform in order to exclude religious perspectives, rejection of the Hindu epics, or campaigns for temple entry, Self Respect Movement members were suggesting adopting new ways of being in the society in which they lived. These activities or positions would serve to create a sense

100

of recognition and community among each other, for they would be recognizable through their actions. This approach demonstrates Lee’s definition of non-religion as “a set of social and cultural forms and experiences that are alternative to religion and framed as such.”276 As an analytical term, the concept of non-religion highlights a function of the Self Respect Movement that we begin to see here through these writings.

REFORMERS: CONSIDERATIONS OF RELIGION

Iyothee Thass, B.R. Ambedkar, and E.V. Ramasami held in common a drive to

eradicate the caste system in Indian society even though each came from different castes themselves. They also held different levels of education, and each held other commonalities and differences. All of these individuals worked for various goals. E.V.R. was a radical reformer who also championed women's rights and rationalism. Ambedkar was a contemporary of E.V.R., and was an active politician at the time of Indian independence who famously is often referred to as the father of the Indian Constitution. Thass differed in that he was politically active earlier than both E.V.R. and Ambedkar. Thass worked in the same part of the country as E.V.R., and came to some of the same conclusions about the virtues of religion similar to Ambedkar, despite coming from a very different background. In this chapter, Thass and Ambedkar are considered as foils to E.V.R., in order to highlight similarities and differences in their approaches to religion. Let us look at each of these three individuals and consider how their approaches to religion informed their politics.

276 Lee, Recognizing the Non-Religious, 13. 101

Iyothee Thass

Introduction to Iyothee Thass

Iyothee Thass lived from 1845-1914, and he was at the peak of his public career

from 1907-1914.277 Thass was born thirty-four years prior to E.V.R., and forty-six years prior to Ambedkar. Many movements, including regional political movements, were begun during Thass’s lifetime, but had not nearly reached the pitch that they would just twenty or thirty years later. There were many nationalist groups, also, but nationalism had not coalesced into the force that it would thereafter. There were those who talked about independence for India, certainly, during Thass’s lifetime, but there was little critical momentum as yet. Accordingly, we must remember that Thass was living and writing during a time when there was no conception that Indian independence was truly on the horizon. National unity had grown, quite tremendously, under the British Raj, but Indian culture was still very much transitioning from unity-under-imperialism to unity-as- resistance. Thass’s youth does not play a large role in the chronicles of his life. There is not a lot of detail known about his early life. He was born on May 20, 1845 in Coimbatore District. His given name was Kathavarayan, although he later changed his name to honor one of his teachers.278 He grew up in the Nilgiris and spent his adult life in Madras, where he was a physician of Siddha medicine. Even after becoming well-known in the area, becoming the leader of an organization (the Sakya Buddhist Society), and

277 Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin, 103-4. 278 G. Aloysius, Religion as Emancipatory Identity: a Buddhist movement among the Tamils under colonialism (New Delhi: Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society: New Age International, 1998), 50. 102

establishing a periodical (the Tamilan), he did not mythologize his youth by creating or telling a story of how his early life contributed to the person he became.279 Additional facts that are known about Thass’s life - especially relating to his political activity - include that, from 1870 onwards, he at least occasionally demonstrated interest in seeking relief from caste-based prejudice for low-caste communities through religious and political avenues. His earliest-known attempt was in 1870, when he established the Advaidananda Sabha with the intent to explore the position of the

Advaitic traditions on varna/caste.280 The group also provided support in resisting Christian proselytizing. A decade later, he petitioned the census to create a new category of “original Tamils” that aboriginal and outcaste communities would constitute. He followed this up by a declaration in 1886 that these original Tamils were not Hindus.281 It was at this same time, in the mid-1880’s, that Thass was associated with his first periodical, Dravida Pandian. In 1891 he established the Dravida Mahajana Sabha, and he soon thereafter participated in attempts to win temple-entry and school admission for untouchables. Eventually Thass became involved with the Olcott Free schools providing education for lower castes.282

Iyothee Thass and Buddhism

The two activities for which Thass is most well-known are the establishment of the Sakya Buddhist Society in 1898283 and the establishment in 1907 of the periodical

279 There is one exception to this of which I am aware. There is a story, told below, about how Thass found evidence of the early connections of Buddhism to Tamil culture and history on a palm leaf manuscript while traveling. This story, with its lack of details and “revelatory” quality, has a mythological bend to it. 280 Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin, 103-4. 281 Aloysius, Religion as Emancipatory Identity, 55. 282 Ibid., 54-55. 283 Ibid., 58. 103

initially named Oru Paisa Tamilan - later changed simply to Tamilan.284 The establishment of the Sakya Buddhist Society followed Thass’s trip to Columbo, Sri Lanka, which was sponsored by Colonel Olcott of the Theosophical Society. The intent of this successful trip was for Thass and P. Krishnaswami (a teacher from the Olcott Free School) to convert to Buddhism and return to Madras to begin a Buddhist society. According to Thass, he had been convinced of the truths of Buddhism for some time by that point. He wrote, “So long back as the year 1890 I came to be convinced after a long

and varied study and research of the truths of Buddhism. In the year 1898, I sought the late Col. M.S. Olcott of the Theosophical Society, Adyar, Madras, for advice and co- operation in the establishment of a Buddhist Society in the city of Madras. At the instance [sic] of that good and great man I journeyed and voyaged to Ceylon.”285 Colonel Olcott also wrote about this experience, and in much more detail. He wrote that “…a committee of these people (the Panchamas/the Paraiahs) headed by one of their recognized leaders Mr. Iyothee Thass, a native doctor of Madras, came to see me. They represented that their race were the aborigines of this part of India, and at the time of the Emperor Asoka, Buddhists; they claimed that there were ancient books which proved this; they begged me to help revive Buddhism among them.”286 A significant part of Thass’s interest in Buddhism - or, at least, a significant part of his explanation of why Buddhism was important to him - lay in its connection to a perceived authentic Tamil past. Indeed, this aspect of Buddhism played a large role in his writing about and promoting Buddhism.287

284 Ibid, 66. 285 Aloysius, Religion as Emancipatory Identity, 50. 286 Ibid., 51. I do not find evidence of a connection of groups now known as scheduled tribes to Buddhism. I believe that Col. Olcott’s reference here to “aborigines” is meant to refer to people who have long inhabited this part of India or “original Tamils” as termed by Thass. 287 Geetha. and Rajadurai, Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium, 46. 104

A story about Thass from the Indian Social Reformer in 1898,288 apparently recounting his own telling, relates that Thass had come across a bundle of Tamil palm- leaf manuscripts while traveling in Coimbatore district. This included a text named Naradia Purana Sangai Thelivoo which was an account from the sage Aswakosa that was evidence that the Parayars had a forgotten Buddhist history.289 This account suggests that the “truth” of the Parayar/Buddhist past was “revealed” to Thass. The finding of this text must have set him on a path of research, for in 1911, he recounted that he had invested much time and research into his conclusion of the truths of Buddhism by 1890. At this same point in his life, Thass was working to connect with other Buddhists around the world. In a letter addressed to “Buddhist Societies in Europe and America”, he refers to “Buddhism, the scientific religion.”290 It is certain that part of Thass’s dedication to the position of Buddhism in south India was based on his conviction that Buddhism was the legitimate past of the Parayars, and that in turning to Buddhism, the Parayars were returning to their own heritage. Indeed, G. Aloysius notes the difference, and significance, between “conversion” and “return”.291 This difference, in fact, leads to the subversion of the Untouchable-Brahmin dichotomy292 since, instead of arguing for Hindu reform, Thass instead calls for a return to another religion altogether. Thass became interested in Buddhism at a point in his life when he was not publishing and before he had begun having a more public presence, therefore little is known about the internal path he took to arrive at that place. There is the story of the

288 This was recounted in Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin, 105. Pandian cites an 1898 journal, The Indian Reformer. 289 Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin, 107. 290 Malarvizhi Jayanth, “Literary Criticism as a Critique of Caste: Ayothee Thass and the Tamil Buddhist Past.” In The Journal of Commonwealth Literature, Vol. 54 (1), 2019, 91. 291 Aloysius, Religion as Emancipatory Identity, 53. 292 Gajendran Ayyathurai, “Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness: Pandit Iyothee Thass, Tamil Buddhism, and the Marginalized in South India.” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 2011), 96. 105

manuscript, shedding light on what turned his attention to Buddhism, but we do not have records of what his period of research and consideration turned up, or what sort of debates he considered. One of the only references relating to the question of Thass’s views on other religions was when, in response to a suggestion that conversion to Christianity and Islam would empower Untouchables, Thass noted: “In some of the Catholic Churches separate seats are assigned for Pariahs, and they are often despised as low caste men, their feelings are much wounded thereby. Even in the Protestant churches of some countries they are likewise insulted and sometimes excluded from Church and Lord’s Supper. [sic]”293 At the time Thass was examining these ideas, Christianity and Islam would have had specific political connotations. Certainly Christianity was associated with the British, and as mentioned above, Thass established the Advaidananda Sabha in 1870 that worked to resist Christian proselytization. It follows that pressure from proselytization was a pressure that Thass had experienced. The literature is unclear whether Islam was explored by Thass as a potential religion to which to turn. It would be interesting to know his views on that religious alternative; instead we can only apply awareness of the growing identification of “Hinduism” with nationalism in India at that time (ultimately leading to a schism between Hindus and Muslims).

Thass and the Purpose of Religion

Thass found Buddhism compelling because he found its precepts to be helpful in living a good life. As a marker of Thass’s values, in 1913 he wrote an illustrative series of articles titled “The Essential Principles Which True Man Should Practice,” in which he specified four principles: “knowledge (vittai), rationality (putti), generosity (eegai), and

293 Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin, 104. 106

right path (sanmarkam).”294 Thass often demonstrated his concern with these principles. He complained about anyone practicing religion in ways that were not furthering either learning or the betterment of society. He wrote, for instance, “Every human being instead of engaging in agriculture, trade, ruling, teaching etc. according to one’s own knowledge, approaching images of stone or wood, praying to them with a view to remove poverty and disease, forsake their own self-efforts and industry… fall into further degradation.”295 Similarly, Thass reiterated his insistence that religion ought to

accompany improvement through industry in the service of society, writing: “If Brahma was the creator of the world and if the Brahmins have descended from his face, have they invented anything worthwhile that is useful to humanity? … Instead of creating things for the well being of people, they have invented living by laziness and hatred for each other.”296 According to Thass, one reason he was convinced by Buddhism was that he found Buddhism to be a specifically rational religion. He wrote in Tamilan, “Even if your great grand-father or grand-father had written so, you ought to test it, through your own inquiry and experience; and if you find that it is truthful and useful for yourself, your descendants, your co-villagers and your co-countrymen then believe it; if it is not, then give it up; that is why Buddha thanmam is named as the true thanmam.”297 Unlike E.V.R., who found rationality outside of religion, Thass found Buddhism to be a source of encouragement in living with a rationalist approach.

294 Ayyathurai, Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness, 28. 295 Iyothee Thass, in Indirar Desa Sarithiram, 1957. Cited in Aloysius, Religion as Emancipatory Identity, 142. 296 Iyothee Thass, in Tamilan, 1913. Cited in Ayyathurai, Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness, 30. 297 Iyothee Thass, in Tamilan, 1913. Cited in Aloysius, Religion as Emancipatory Identity, 108. 107

Thass and Revision of Hierarchy

Ultimately, Thass encouraged people to live according to their principles, and in fact suggested that true social hierarchy should be based on this criteria. M.S.S. Pandian notes that for Thass, Brahminhood should be determined along a relational axis, depending on moral conduct.298 Thass wrote in 1911, “…since the pseudo-constructions of caste and religion are responsible for the ruination of Indian society, those who pretend themselves to be reformers and rave about reforming the Depressed Classes should actually give up their conceit about their caste, religion, education, and wealth. Instead they should work for brotherhood and integration among all, which alone is the foundation of all reforms.”299 Thass specified that Brahmin status - here signified by the use of the Brahmin designation “Iyer” - should be achieved directly by moral conduct rather than birth: “One who protects all lives as his own is of Iyer class; one with proficiency in all skills is of Iyer class; one who is intelligent is of Iyer class; one who excels in munificence is of Iyer class; one who thrives in morality is of Iyer class; one who ensures the unity of the humanity by destroying the envy called caste difference is of Iyer class; one who does not take pleasure from others’ wives is of Iyer class…”300

Ambedkar

Introduction to Ambedkar

Ambedkar differs from Thass and E.V.R. in that he was the most formally educated, the lowest caste, and he was active at high levels in the central Indian politics of the independence era. Ambedkar was born in 1891 near the western coast of India in

298 Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin, 115. 299 Iyothee Thass, in Tamilan, 1913. Cited in Ayyathurai, Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness, 85. 300 Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin, 112. 108

what is the modern state of Madhya Pradesh.301 He was born into an Untouchable caste (the Mahars), and although relationships in the village were respectful, the more he left the village, the more he experienced the hardships regularly lived by the Untouchable castes.302 He was tremendously gifted intellectually, and he gained support for schooling first in Bombay, then at Columbia University in New York City, and finally in London. He was influenced by thinkers such as John Dewey (who was one of his professors at Columbia University), Booker T. Washington, and Thomas Paine.303 He returned to India

to find himself unable to practice law because he could not attract clients due to his caste. Ambedkar combined a keen intellect with perspectives on equality and the rights of the individual. He brought these to his approach to reform in India. One theme commonly found in the literature is that there were two sides to Ambedkar. Arundhati Roy calls these Ambedkar the Radical, and Ambedkar the Father of the Indian Constitution.304 Christophe Jaffrelot describes Ambedkar’s two “strategies of emancipation”: one approach focused more on politics, and one focused more on religion. About the man, he describes him thus: “‘Ambedkar the statesman and man of action’ as often concealing ‘Ambedkar the reflective thinker’. ...a true intellectual.” Scholars often describe him as someone who approached issues able to see two sides. He was intellectual, and was happy to consider radical ideas, even to be convinced by them. Yet, he also recognized the importance of legal and political change. Even as he let his mind explore freely, he believed in a legislative approach. He was not a political radical per se, even if discussing substantial changes to Indian society. In practice, he remained

301 Christophe Jaffrelot, Dr. Ambedkar and Untouchability: Fighting the Indian Caste System (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 2. 302 Ibid., 3. 303 Ibid., 28. 304 Roy, The Doctor and the Saint, 28. 109

willing to cooperate with the government. He could set aside his own preferences if he saw an opportunity of effecting legislative change to further his goals of increasing social equality in India. This quality led to his inclusion in discussions of the changing governance of India.

Ambedkar and Legislation versus Religious Choice

Ambedkar struggled with the question of the best way to bring about change. In 1933, addressing the non-Brahmin public, Ambedkar wrote, “You have now a way of bringing about change, an improvement in your life condition. That way is through political action, through appropriate laws… Hence instead of resorting to rosary counting or prayer you should now depend on the political path; that will bring you liberation.”305 The primary message from Ambedkar here is that he believed that a person’s path to improving their lot in life was best undertaken through political action rather than religion. This shows Ambedkar’s practical side. He spoke here of truly effecting change that a person could experience on a day-to-day level. He advocated campaigning for changes that could be instituted legislatively (“through appropriate laws”). Yet, just two years later he said, “Because we have the misfortune of calling ourselves Hindus, we are treated thus. If we were members of another faith none would treat us so. Choose any religion which gives you equality of status and treatment. We shall repair our mistake now. I had the misfortune of being born with the stigma of an Untouchable. However, it is not my fault; but I will not die a Hindu, for this is in my power.”306 Here, he did not seem to be holding any hope in legislative change. Rather, he showed a bend toward self- reliance, and toward individuals being able to change their own circumstances through

305 Jaffrelot, Dr. Ambedkar and Untouchability, 52. 306 Roy, The Doctor and the Saint, 36. 110

changing their own religion if oppressed by a religion that enacted social injustice. Later, he affirms his faith in political change: at the first Round Table Conference in London in 1930, he argued, “We are often reminded that the problem of the Depressed Classes is a social problem and that its solution lies elsewhere than in politics. We take strong exception to this view. We hold that the problem of the Depressed Classes will never be solved unless they get political power in their own hands. If this is true, and I do not think that the contrary can be maintained, then the problem of Depressed Classes is I submit

eminently a political problem and must be treated as such.”307 He is exceptionally clear here, arguing very specifically that the problem should be solved legislatively at the exclusion of other approaches. And yet, by the end of his life, Ambedkar turned to the personal, religious path, when he ultimately converted to Buddhism a few months before he died. This is the dichotomy I notice in Ambedkar’s thought: on one hand, he truly wanted to believe in the ability of law to mediate the baser natures of human kind. On the other hand, he knew that if people really want to effect change, they had to make personal choices to effect that change. This provides some insight into Ambedkar’s approach; however, it does not answer why Ambedkar turned toward religion while others turned away from it.

Ambedkar’s Critique of Hinduism

Ambedkar left behind an extensive body of work, much of which related to his views on religion. One of his most famous works, itself the result of an invitation - that

307 B.R. Ambedkar, “Report containing Views and Recommendations regarding changes in the Constitution of the Bombay Presidency, Sec. III, Chap. 3,” in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol. 2, ed. Vasant Moon and Hari Narke (New Delhi: Dr. Ambedkar Foundation, 2014), 506.

111

was later revoked -to give a speech, is titled “Annihilation of Caste.” Ambedkar self- published this intended speech308 at the time - in 1937 - and it has been published repeatedly ever since. Ambedkar’s purpose in this speech was to lay out clearly and thoroughly the aspects of Hinduism that are corrosive to Indian society, and how Indian society could be reformed. Ambedkar held the Hindu religion responsible for the harmful practice of caste in India. Despite the fact that Ambedkar was aware that the term “Hinduism” was

introduced by foreigners to lump together a wide variety of practices and beliefs on the subcontinent, he also accepted that - regardless of its origins - Hinduism had come to have a social or political life that was real, and he accepted that and addressed it head-on. However, one of his primary complaints of Hinduism was the divisiveness it perpetuated among its own population. He wrote: “The first and foremost thing that must be recognized is that Hindu society is a myth. The name Hindu itself is a foreign name. It was given by the Mahomedans to the natives for the purpose of distinguishing themselves. …[And yet:] Castes do not even form a federation. A caste has no feeling that it is affiliated to other castes, except when there is a Hindu-Moslem riot. On all other occasions each caste endeavors to segregate itself and to distinguish itself from other castes.”309 This systematic separation was certainly one of the issues that Ambedkar could not move past as he struggled with how to attempt social reform in India.

308 This speech, which was to have been the President’s Address at the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal (“Forum for Break-up of Caste”) of Lahore’s annual conference in 1936. However, the content of the speech was judged by the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal to be too incendiary, and rather than take responsibility for inviting this speaker, they decided to cancel the conference instead. Ambedkar published their correspondence from the invitation through the decision to cancel as a prologue to his work when he originally self-published it in 1937. 309 B.R. Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste: The Annotated Critical Edition (London: Verso, 2014), 273-4. This description presents caste as divisive; this idea of caste is an opposite to the theory that caste developed in part because the group identities brought strength to individuals’ lived experiences as discussed in Chapter Two of this dissertation. One difference, however, is that Ambedkar is noting the 112

Ambedkar spent a good deal of time explaining how the divisions in Indian society were propagated by Hinduism, and why indeed it was so harmful. He wrote, “…the caste system is not merely a division of labor. It is also a division of laborers. …which is quite different from division of labour – it is a hierarchy in which the divisions of laborers are graded one above the other.”310 He described this separation as causing a level of self-interest requiring inward-oriented groups to be intent on self- defense rather than cooperation. According to Ambedkar, this led to an actively hostile situation: “The Hindus, therefore, are not merely an assortment of castes, but are so many warring groups, each living for itself and for its selfish ideal.”311 Ambedkar contrasted this effect Hinduism has had on Indian society with the support or fellowship that is often the result of other religious membership, such as among Muslims or Sikhs. Instead, in India, he described the situation: “The effect of caste on the ethics of the Hindus is simply deplorable. Caste has killed public spirit. Caste has destroyed the sense of public charity. Caste has made public opinion impossible.”312 Ambedkar described various specific ways that, through limiting education or access to various livelihoods, lower castes weren’t given the tools to develop any resistance. They were undermined wholly and completely.313 Very importantly, Ambedkar does lay the blame for the sorry state of affairs he has described squarely at the foot of Hinduism as it had come to be practiced. He explained, “…it must be recognized that the Hindus observe caste not because they are inhuman or wrong-headed. They observe caste because they are deeply religious. People

divisiveness encouraged by caste for the nation as a whole. Whereas, the cohesion of castes is noted for individuals. 310 Ibid., 266. 311 Ibid., 277. 312 Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, 287. 313 For more information, see ibid., 300-307 and 322-329. 113

are not wrong in observing caste. In my view, what is wrong is their religion, which has inculcated this notion of caste. If this is correct, then obviously the enemy you must grapple with is not the people who observe caste, but the shastras which teach them this religion of caste.”314 He was very clear that it is a systemic problem. This is where he began laying out the direction that should be taken to insist on change: “You must take the stand that Buddha took. You must take the stand which Guru Nanak took. You must not only discard the shastras, you must deny their authority…”315.

Ambedkar’s Conception of Religion

One of Ambedkar’s arguments to urge his listeners to actually move away from Hinduism sheds light on his conception of religion. He explained that Hinduism was a “mass of sacrificial, social, political, and sanitary rules and regulations,”316 or, “To put it in plain language, what the Hindus call religion is really law, or at best legalized class- ethics. Frankly, I refuse to call this code of ordinances as religion.”317 In his descriptions, it was clear that for him, in order for a belief system to classify as a religion, it should have a “sense of spiritual principles, truly universal, applicable to all races, to all countries, to all times.”318 He hoped that others would not feel threatened that their religion was under attack, if they could see that it was not actually a “religion” at all. He urged, “I say there is nothing irreligious in working for the destruction of such a religion… Once you clear the minds of the people of this misconception and enable them to realize that what they are told is religion is not religion, but that it is really law, you

314 Ibid., 313. 315 Ibid., 314-5. 316 Ibid., 330. 317 Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, 331. 318 Ibid. 114

will be in a position to urge its amendment or abolition.”319 Despite coming to his conclusions regarding Hinduism, Ambedkar was not, however, dissuaded from believing that religions could be a source for positive lifestyles. Ambedkar ended his speech affirming his support for religions in general, and pointing to some potential paths for reform in Hinduism to attempt to correct the deep flaws he had laid out. His stated support for religion, generally, was quite strong; he wrote, “While I condemn a religion of rules, I must not be understood to hold the opinion that there is no necessity for religion. On the contrary I agree with Burke when he says that ‘True religion is the foundation of society, the basis on which all true Civil Government rests.’”320 Accordingly, he expressed his hope that “these ancient rules of life be annulled,” and that “their place shall be taken by a religion of principles, which alone can lay claim to being a true religion.”321 He closed with four suggestions for those interested in reform. These included considering the survival value of the principles put forth by Hinduism, accepting that some parts perhaps needed to be carried forward while others were left behind, the past needed to be left in the past rather than continuing to be upheld as an ideal, and there needed to be an acceptance of change on a fundamental level. In summary, in “Annihilation of Caste,” Ambedkar expressed his definition of religion as one that was spiritual and universally accessible, and should foster a sense of cohesiveness among its adherents. He felt that a true religion would be a religion of principles, and that it would thus be an acceptable foundation for society… even as a basis for a civil government. Ambedkar did take an idiosyncratic approach to

319 Ibid., 332. 320 Ibid., 333. 321 Ibid. 115

Buddhism.322 This has been characterized as having “rejected aspects of familiar historical varieties of Buddhism and configured a new vehicle whose goals were to be more specifically material than spiritual.”323 It has been noted that “Religious conversion transformed in Ambedkar’s rhetorical strategy to a meliorative program.”324 Ambedkar’s primary focus in converting to Buddhism and inviting anyone else to join him, was to qualitatively improve life: socially, materially, and though following a right path.

E.V. Ramasami (E.V.R.)

E.V.R. was uncompromisingly direct and ambitious in his reform goals. Reportedly he always questioned authority and enjoyed looking afresh beyond standard cultural norms. This meant that he was quite willing to take radical stances, and it is part of what makes his work so interesting. E.V.R. understood the Hindu religion, and all that it encompassed, as a man-made creation intended to exert social control and promote those at the top of the system - the Brahmins.325 He railed against the prescriptions, prohibitions, superstitions, and requirements that he saw those around him subjected to by their adoption of belief in Hinduism. He stated: “Is there any other reason for Indians to be so disunited? Is not Hinduism responsible for the creation of so many divisions and differences? Is not Hinduism responsible for the creation of so many castes, that too some as high and some

322 This is discussed in Barua, Stroud, and Gannon (who notes many others who have also discussed Ambedkar’s approach. Shane Gannon, “Conversion as Thematic Site: Academic Representations of Ambedkar’s Buddhist Turn,” in Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, Vol. 23, 2011, p. 4.) 323 Ankur Barua, “Revisiting the Gandhi-Ambedkar Debates over ‘Caste’: The Multiple Resonances of Varna.” In Journal of Human Values. Vol. 25, No. 1, 2019. 25. 324 Scott Stroud, “The Rhetoric of Conversion as Emancipatory Strategy in India: Bhimrao Ambedkar, Pragmatism, and the Turn to Buddhism,” in Rhetorica, Vol. 35, Issue 3, 2017. 314. Stroud notes that Ambedkar’s Buddhism considered self-emancipation as an end and a means. 318. 325 Ibid., 98. 116

as low? The Vedas and Sastras (Hindu Doctrines) prove these.”326 Even more pointedly, E.V.R. claimed, “So we come to the conclusion that god and religion are created to safeguard the interests of the rich people, exploiters, high caste people, Mahans, and other vested interests. The ruler and laws of the land and the system of punishment thrive safely because of god and religion.”⁠ 327 E.V.R. regularly pointed out the inability of anyone living in India to free themselves from religious influences and subjugations. Yet, his goal was to influence

those around him and spread a revolution of thought. He wrote, for instance: “For one who believes in radical change, self-respect, equality and progress, the alternative (to the present situation) is not mere reform; but radical reconstructive work which would destroy the traditional structures.” He named his organization the Self Respect Movement precisely because he viewed the throwing off of what he called ignorance and blind belief to be a move toward self respect.

E.V.R.’s Critique of Religion

E.V.R. formulated his critique of religion using many arguments. In one of them, he pointed out the paradox created by the definition of god. He explained, “Similarly when the believers in god say that god is omnipotent and omniscient, how could it be possible for a man to deny it. When an ordinary man denies god, it proves that there is no god that is omnipotent and omniscient. Further it proves that the qualities attributed to god by Brahmins are baseless. They are mere imaginary concoctions about god. That is all.”328 In this approach, E.V.R. is addressing the concept of god in itself. At other times, he ponders the purpose of religion: “Why does one need religion? We need to ponder

326 Ramasami, Collected Works, 71. 327 Ibid., 98. 328 Ramasami, Collected Works, 87. 117

this. To my mind it seems that religion might have originated when humans began to live as groups and wanted to have some order for their day-to-day life and prevent one from harming others.”329 E.V.R. spent a lot of time trying to analyze religion, how it functioned, and why it was so important to people. E.V.R. viewed the Hindu religion, and all that it encompassed, as a man-made creation intended to exert social control and promote those at the top of the system - the Brahmins. He railed against the prescriptions, prohibitions, superstitions, and requirements that he saw those around him subjected to by their own adoption of belief in Hinduism. He stated: “Is there any other reason for Indians to be so disunited? Is not Hinduism responsible for the creation of so many divisions and differences? Is not Hinduism responsible for the creation of so many castes, that too some as high and some as low? The Vedas and Sastras (Hindu Doctrines) prove these.”330 Even more pointedly, E.V.R. claimed, “So we come to the conclusion that god and religion are created to safeguard the interests of the rich people, exploiters, high caste people, Mahans, and other vested interests. The ruler and laws of the land and the system of punishment thrive safely because of god and religion.”331 It is clear when reading E.V.R.’s work that the basis of his criticism of religion is a functional one. Another way that E.V.R. thought, wrote, and spoke about religion was to apply logical arguments to the explanations given by Hindu apologists. For instance, “Some say that ‘the Hindu religion is the religion of the Vedas. The Vedas were spoken by god.’ Look at the vulgarity of this proposition. If the vedas were spoken by god then they’d have to be common for all. … If it was a veda meant for us would it not have been

329 Guha, The Makers of Modern India, 229. 330 Ramasami, Collected Works, 71. 331 Ibid., 98. 118

spoken in our language? What do we have to do with the vedic language? Further if it had been meant for us how is it that it is not for us to hear, see, read or understand?”332 And, at other times, he appeals to a sense of right and wrong and relates that to how Hinduism was practiced. For instance, “If our religion accepts the theory that god is common to all and is omnipresent, how is it that such cruelties as we should not go near the deity, enter the temples, while some others can touch the deity, wash it, clothe it can be instituted.”333 He also tended to get very critical: “Our religious politics and practices

are the reason for our country not attaining freedom and wallowing in a state without self-respect.”334 And, E.V.R. was very consistent in insisting that everyone rely on their own reason, saying “I set out to speak on the matter of religious reform only after stating that [sic] ‘Please give me a patient hearing and then do as you wish’…”.335 In returning to the question of why some (most) reformers in India during the independence period chose to work within a religious context, while E.V.R., for instance, chose to reject the religious context altogether, there remains the question of other religions as viable alternatives to Hinduism (since all of these specific individuals have a special issue with Hinduism). Iyothee Thass, for instance, found what he believed to be an authentic religious “home” in Buddhism, and he developed an ethos supporting how Buddhism fit into the contemporary milieu. Ambedkar spent time considering many different religions and how each of them would impact his primary concern: caste reform. E.V.R. found truth in rationalism and the use of reason for the betterment of society. Reconciling religion and reason can be challenging regardless of the religion in question.

332 Guha, The Makers of Modern India, 226. 333 Ibid., 227. 334 Ibid. 335 Ibid., 228. 119

To understand why E.V.R. turned away from religion entirely, the question of what E.V.R. thought about other belief systems should be considered. Interestingly, whereas Ambedkar turned to Buddhism, E.V.R. at least at times suggested Hindus convert to Islam as a way to escape (and challenge) the caste system. E.V.R. was very direct and clear in this suggestion, writing, “Colleagues, our malady, the malady of being Shudras … is like cancer and leprosy, a long-standing malady. It has only one remedy and that remedy is Islam. Apart from this there is no remedy.”336 This is interesting, for

he seems to not consider conversion to other religions to be a viable option to reach the same ends. As for what those ends are, he does explain his thinking on this, describing values and a wider community available to Muslims. He said, “For all these there is only one God and that too without a form, having no wife and children and demanding neither food nor drinks. What is common to all are fraternity, equal rights and discipline and all the rest depends on the traditions of the different countries. Precisely because of these common elements, the sixty crore peoples, though living in different parts of the world are fraternal among themselves.”337 His reasons for promoting Islam were for the sake of fraternity, equal rights, and to live with discipline. He reiterated this later, describing Islam as “a way of life, humility, peace and true fraternity.”338 Clearly, he anticipated that those who converted to Islam would gain a worldwide community in which they could participate with equality.339

336 E.V. Ramasami, Periyar on Islam, trans. & intr. by G. Aloysius (New Delhi: Critical Quest, 2004), 12. 337 Ibid., 13. 338 Ibid., 14. 339 Although E.V.R. did not find evidence for religion on a transcendental level, he was aware that many people found this for themselves. Thusly, here, he pointed out a religion that he believed would improve adherents’ social and communal lives. A.R. Venkatachalapathy writes that E.V.R. “made tactical use of Islam… He advocated conversion to Islam (for Dalits)… as a means to overcome the oppression of untouchability.” Venkatachalapathy, Tamil Characters, in “Periyar: Prophet from the South.” Matthew Baxter also recognizes that E.V.R.’s focus in his discussions of Islam alight on an “alteration of how one is 120

E.V.R. and Atheism

Although E.V.R. wrote regularly on rationalism and his views on religion, usually explaining why he found religion invalid, he also regularly attempted to make clear that he was not trying to tell others what to think. One of his primary techniques, as very helpfully and convincingly discussed by G. Aloysius, was to critique the specific religious context in which he found himself, one that propagated the caste system. This critique was taken up by his detractors who described him as a fanatical atheist.340 In fact, E.V.R. also regularly made conciliatory comments about religion, such as “Religion is

the sum of the rules related to cooperative living and code of conduct needed for a society. Self Respect Movement is not against such a harmonious society. Even if it is said that religion is needed to reach god we will not interfere. It is after all an individual’s

personal affair.”341 It is easy to get caught up in E.V.R.’s rhetoric and see him as actively campaigning for non-belief. As a basis for much of the reforms he campaigned for, E.V.R. certainly maintained a deep criticism of the ways he perceived Hinduism being used as justification for the separation of castes, the status of women, devadasis, and widows, and the overall subjugation of Indians to what E.V.R. considered senseless rituals and rules. This critique of Hinduism, which he often espoused through particularly virulent rhetoric, led him to have a long-lasting reputation as an atheist. In 1947 E.V.R. stated: “Many people are of the opinion that I am an atheist and a non-believer in religion. Many have exposed it openly. ... I wish to state plainly that it is on account of ignorance that the theists call me as an atheist. I would say that it is more on account of their irresponsibility... To say that those who deny god are atheists is based

seen in the world.” Matthew H. Baxter, “Two Concepts of Conversion at Meenakshipuram.” In Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Vol. 39, No. 2, 2019. 340 This point is discussed by G. Aloysius in Periyar on Islam. 341 Ramasami, Collected Works, 71. 121

on ignorance. It is senseless to call a man as an atheist.”342 Some confusion seems to underlie this series of assertions. Generally, to say that those who deny god are atheists would be correct, rather than something based on ignorance. This calls into question exactly what E.V.R. believed people were saying when they called him an atheist. Perhaps often, E.V.R. was debating religious assumptions and perspectives more for the sake of critiquing the particular religious realities Indian society was facing, rather than attempting an ultimate denial of religious perspectives.

Despite what seems to be ambiguity regarding E.V.R.’s position relating to religion in general, his reputation as an atheist became solidified early on. In the quotes above, he responded to the assertions that he was an atheist in the early-mid twentieth century with frustration, claiming that such claims were based on ignorance. Yet, later, he made claims such as “Atheism can be understood by education, proper enquiry and by independent, unbiased thinking.”343 Ultimately, he came to embrace the designation “atheist.” One of his most famous quotes, for instance, would seem to leave little room for doubt about where he stood. This quote is what is inscribed below many statues of him in various locations in Tamil Nadu: “There is no god. There is no god. There is no god at all. He who invented god is a fool; he who propagates god is a scoundrel; he who worships god is a barbarian.” E.V.R.’s changes in perspective are part of what make understanding what he meant by “atheism”, or how he understood it, a challenge. Did the change reflect a growing and changing understanding, or was it more a result of the attention and therefore publicity and influence that E.V.R. received as “an atheist”?

342 Ramasami, Collected Works, 87. 343 Ibid., 483. 122

E.V.R.’s Goals

E.V.R. stated his goals as “the eradication of the evils of caste and religion,” and he regularly campaigned against “ignorance”. E.V.R. grew up in a society that was remarkably focused on hierarchy and status, and he grew to view religion as the cause for this focus. E.V.R. regularly pointed out the inability of anyone living in India to free themselves from those influences and subjugations. Yet, his goal was to influence those around him and spread a revolution of thought. He wrote, for instance: “For one who believes in radical change, self-respect, equality and progress, the alternative (to the

present situation) is not mere reform; but radical reconstructive work which would

destroy the traditional structures.”344 He named his organization the Self Respect Movement precisely because he viewed the throwing off of what he called ignorance and blind belief to be a move toward self respect. E.V.R.’s critique of religion does not focus on the question of whether there is a god. He is not particularly concerned with existential concerns regarding religion; rather, he is concerned with the effects of religion on society. Additionally, his concerns are focused on Hinduism. E.V.R. wrote in 1949: “If the religion says that a man should be respected as man, we will not object. If the religion says that there is no high and low distinctions in the society, we do not protest against that religion. If the God says that no one need spend anything to worship him, we will not oppose that god.”345 E.V.R. focused on negative messages or effects of the religion on society. Although he regularly calls religion a fiction with no truth behind the ideas of religion or god, whenever he gets

344 E.V. Ramasami, from Kudi Arasu (27 Nov. 1928), cited in S. Anandhi, “Women’s Question in the Dravidian Movement c. 1925-1948,” Social Scientist, Vol. 19, Nos. 5-6, May-Ju 1991, 25. 345 Ramasami, Collected Works, 484. 123

down to details he seems to be mainly arguing against the Hindu religion and its effects on the society that adopts it.

Comparison

Thass, Ambedkar, and E.V.R. each held the eradication of caste in Hindu society as one of their primary aspirations. For each of them, this focus led to a deep questioning of the religion into which they were born, that was most prominent in the Indian society that surrounded them. And of course, each individual was led to different conclusions and took different paths for social reform. The purpose of this chapter has been to explore their differences, and ultimately, seek to learn what differentiated E.V.R. Each individual’s section in this chapter has considered the specific context in which they grew up, what critique of religion they formulated, and what conclusions they came to in their own religious paths. The inclusion of both Thass and Ambedkar in no way signifies that Buddhism specifically was key as an alternative to Hinduism, any other religion, or non- belief. Which religion these reformers settled on is much less important than the path these individuals took to get there, how they viewed religion in general, and how their choices reflected their values. Thass is particularly interesting regarding his relationship to religion because his religious conversion to Buddhism preceded the height of his political activity, and the two were very intertwined. Reportedly he unintentionally stumbled upon a potential connection between Buddhism and what he perceived as the authentic Tamil past, and for Thass, historical ties imparted a sense of legitimacy to the desire to reject Hinduism through alignment with Buddhism. For him, this was less about “conversion” than it was about a “return”. The principles that guided Thass in his acceptance of Buddhism as his religious refuge were ultimately focused around the betterment of society. Thass found 124

Buddhism to be rational and moral, and he campaigned both for a more extensive Tamil return to Buddhism and for a widespread acceptance of these social goals. Ambedkar was an incredibly erudite scholar who was intensely politically active for the majority of his adult life. He extended his attention in many directions, indeed even in directions that appeared disjointed at times, thus being noted for internal conflict. Ambedkar’s trajectory was the opposite of Thass, in some regards, since his conversion and dedication to Buddhism only came at the end of a long life of intentional questioning and searching for a settled opinion on religion and how it fit both into society and into his own life. In other regards, however, their writings were at times in agreement. Ambedkar spent a lot of time considering the practice of caste in India, and he provided thorough explanations of the divisions that caste perpetuated in Indian society. And yet, he was very forgiving of religion in general. He did not extend the fault of Hinduism in particular onto religion as a whole. Instead, he bent his mind toward finding another religion that would uphold the values he found important both individually and for the health of India as a whole. He campaigned for the eradication of the caste system or, failing that, for constitutionally-supported equality for all castes. Despite his frustrations with Hinduism, he remained dedicated to the desirability of a religious life. E.V.R was known as an iconoclast who championed atheism, but upon a closer reading, that seems an oversimplification. E.V.R.’s foremost approach was summed up by him by the descriptor “rationalism.” By this, he referred to the rejection of assumptions or unexamined traditions. He consistently questioned, even as a youth, and urged others to do the same. One of the most pervasive examples of irrationality for E.V.R. was religion. He was most certainly an atheist himself, and he took many approaches in critiquing religion. At times, E.V.R. focused his frustration on Hinduism

125

specifically, noting the multitude of problems that permeated Hindu society relating back to its religious precepts. At other times, he wielded logic as a weapon and undermined religious approaches. His critical approach was deep and wide, and extended to the weaknesses he found in peoples’ descriptions of gods of any religion. Yet, E.V.R. many times seemed to make conciliatory comments regarding why people want or need religion in their lives. At times he claimed that it was not his goal to spread atheism; he wanted instead to make sure that people believed what they believed as a result of educated consideration, not habit, tradition, or confused thought.

E.V.R.’s Rationalism

The stated goal for this chapter is to uncover part of the answer to the question: what differentiated the Self Respect Movement from other movements in India, especially in relation to religion? After exploring these three reformers who wrote and talked about their relationship to religion extensively, the biggest difference E.V.R. demonstrated in comparison to the others was his intent reliance on reason. All three of these individuals ultimately held the shared goal of eradication of caste and the uplift of Indian society. All of them shared the conviction that Hinduism as practiced in India was part of the problem. All of them spent time examining Hinduism’s role, and how reform would best be enacted and received. E.V.R. was the only one to turn away from religion altogether. As mentioned above, E.V.R.’s approach is overwhelmingly functional. He found ample evidence on which to critique the effects Hinduism or religion had on the society around him. E.V.R. brought a wide range of experiences to his critiques following a year he spent traveling internationally in 1932. He went to Ceylon, the Soviet Union, the Suez,

126

Cairo, Athens, Constantinople, Germany, France, Spain, and Portugal.346 He returned from this trip with a heightened awareness of reform in other countries. It was upon his return that he attempted to join together the Self Respect Movement with his heightened awareness of socialist ideas, and he contributed to the forming of the “Self Respect – Samadharma [“socialist”] Party”. This raised the attention of officials in the British Madras Presidency, however, and when faced with potential repression, the Self Respect Movement separated from the Samadharma Party. E.V.R’s criticisms of religion echo a

Marxist awareness of the economic control exerted through the social effects of Hinduism, but even more prevalent is a Nietzschian positioning of religion as a tool for control leading to slavery under religion’s illogical and even harmful requirements. E.V.R. was familiar with various international aligned causes or writers - at times publishing works from the Rationalist Press Association in England (who he visted on his trip), or works by Robert Ingersoll (the American academic), along with many other writers. He was the first one in India to translate and publish the Communist Manifesto.347 Yet, E.V.R. consistently brought all of these ideas back to his local struggles, and he engaged the Indian context on its own terms.348 He wrote extensive commentaries on some of the classic Indian epics such as the Ramayana and put massive amounts of time and energy into the periodicals he established, constantly writing for and responding to

346 A.R. Venkatachalapathy, “From Erode to Volga: Periyar EVR’s Soviet and European Tour, 1932,” in India and the World in the First Half of the Twentieth Century. M. Palat, ed. London: Routledge India, 2018, 103. 347 Ibid. 348 Matthew Baxter evaluates, for instance, the “compelling combination of imagination and fidelity” that are present in the Self Respect Movement’s translation of the Communist Manifesto. As Baxter describes through his close reading and evaluation of that translation, “one can appreciate the ways in which external elements from elsewhere were incorporated within a particular political struggle, thereby appreciating both the elements and the struggle anew.” Matthew H. Baxter, “Bhutams of Marx and the Movement of Self- Respecters.” In History of Political Thought. Vol. XXXVII. No. 2. Summer 2016. 127

his immediate audience. E.V.R.’s reform attempts were active, engaged, consistently challenging, and unafraid. His rationalist approach was natural to him throughout his life, and he spent his lifetime finding new ways to express it.

CONCLUSION

Although E.V.R. only directly wrote a few articles for Revolt with his name listed as the author, as the lead editor for the life of Revolt, E.V.R. was undoubtedly highly influential in selecting its content. This section concludes with a brief overview of

Revolt’s content alongside E.V.R.’s writings specifically as a follow-up to the question of the approach to religion (or rejection of religion, as the case may be). Revolt published articles that were both pro-religion and anti-religion; examples of both stances were presented earlier in this section. At times there were comments that were tremendously direct and unambiguous, such as S. Guruswami (one of the secondary editors), writing that “The greatest of the impediments to the progress of the world is

religion.”349 And yet, Revolt also published excerpts from S. Mudaliar’s address in which he stated, “Rights, rituals, ceremonialism, intermediaries and things like that which are not essentials of Hindu religion - to remove them and to restore the pristine purity of the great Religion are the purpose for which the conference has been organized. …it makes us more religious than we were before and to free our religion from the accidental circumstances that have surrounded it, and make it the purest and the noblest of all religions.”350 This article was, ultimately, arguing that religion in India could be the “purest and noblest”, and expressing a hope to become more religious than before. These positive hopes were wrapped up in an awareness that there were changes that were

349 S. Guruswami, “The First Self-respect Volunteers Conference, Pattukottai, Presidential Address,” Revolt, May 29, 1929, 240. 350 “A Fitting Reply,” Revolt, April 10, 1929, 184. 128

needed (i.e. to remove ritualism and intermediaries), however there was absolutely no perspective in this example that religion itself was the problem. More to the point than pro-religion or anti-religion, however, is the question of atheism. Suggesting positions that either present religion in positive or negative ways does not equate to actually promoting atheism. Looking at Revolt for comments relating specifically to atheism, there is not as much as one might think. The majority of comments that would relate are more general, and are covered in the category of “pro- or anti- religion”. There was an article, however, that ran in two parts in August of 1929, titled “Why Preach Atheism”, which addressed the question of atheism directly. The article began, “An esteemed correspondent writes to us: ‘I have seen in The Revolt continuous references to favor atheism and ridiculous descriptions of God, and have wondered how far, this can be useful [sic] to the movement which you have so dear to heart.’”351 If this correspondent has interpreted the content of Revolt to include “continuous references to favor atheism”, then that suggests that the anti-religious content, despite not referring explicitly to atheism, in fact gave atheist connotations via its anti-religious rhetoric. The article went on to respond: “Our correspondent rightly doubts the usefulness of atheism in the propagation of our movement. … If these reformers have failed to produce any lasting effect on our society it is due to their fearful attitude towards the roots of opposition. They laid the axe at the branch, instead of at the root of evil.”352 This gives a clue as to one way that the approach of Revolt made sense to those who sympathized with its approach. The goal of “laying the axe at the root” helps explain the depth of social critique for which Revolt aimed.

351 “Why Preach Atheism” Revolt, April 4, 1929, 305. 352 Ibid. 129

Contributors to Revolt displayed approaches to religion that included a focus on reason, interest in the good for the many, a focus on education to allay “superstition”, historical awareness, global awareness, and a focus on change and progress. All of these are perspectives that were often adopted by members of the Self Respect Movement. As discussed in the “Reflections on Revolt,” above, and as demonstrated in the discussion of E.V.R.’s impassioned rejection of religion and the practices associated with it, the Self Respect Movement functioned in part to create new community. Whether through changes in perspectives or the adoption of new, tangible, and alternative practices that would change the ways individuals related to the religious contexts in which they lived, adherents would be distinguished from the general population. These are examples of the Self Respect Movement as non-religion.

130

Chapter 4: “When it was at its Radical Best…” Identity Formation in South India in the Early Twentieth Century

Roundly condemned for its regionalism, separatism and chauvinism and its so- called collaboration with the colonial rulers, the Dravidian movement was seen as undermining the nationalist cause. … The Suyamariyathai or the self-respect phase of the Dravidian movement [was] when it was at its radical best.353 – Venkatachalapathy If non-religion includes positions, perspectives, or practices that are understood to specifically not be religious,354 then Chapter Three described positions and perspectives through individuals’ writings, and this chapter will explore practices through examinations of three reform areas through which the non-religious culture of the Self Respect Movement was enacted in early twentieth century India. Specifically, I examine the contexts of caste, language, and gender. A recent publication, Secular Bodies, Affects, and Emotions adopts a similar approach to what I adopt here. Its introduction explains: “We would suggest that the study of the secular should not so much lie in an attempt to capture what is, but rather to reveal what it does and how it works. Our central argument is that the secular is not so much a ‘thing’ than a formation which operates through the selective marking of practices, habits and life-forms.”355 This chapter, then, is an examination of what practices, what substantive enactments, undergird what I consider the Self Respect Movement’s non-religiosity. This chapter, like Chapter Three, also relies on writings either by E.V.R. or from articles published in Self Respect Movement journals.

353 A.R. Venkatachalapathy, “Dravidian Movement and Saivites” in Economic and Political Weekly. Vol. 30, No 14. April 8, 1995, 761. 354 “Non-religion is therefore any phenomenon—position, perspective, or practice—that is primarily understood in relation to religion but which is not itself considered to be religious.” Lee, Recognizing the Non-Religious, 32. 355 Monique Scheer, Birgitte Schepelern Johansen, and Nadia Fadil, “Secular Embodiments: Mapping an Emergent Field” in Secular Bodies, Affects, and Emotions: European configurations (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019), 3. 131

CASTE

E.V.R. and Caste

E.V.R.’s criticism of the practice of caste in India was central to his work for reform. For him, inequality in any form was a core concern, and inequalities that could be traced back to gender or caste were often at the heart of the topics about which he chose to protest or campaign for change. E.V.R. considered caste to be inseparable from

religion. E.V.R.’s goals included “the eradication of the evils of caste and religion,”356 and he regularly campaigned against “ignorance” by stating his belief that Hindu religion leads to slavery357 (specifically: mental and emotional slavery alongside the slavery of low-caste people to high-caste people). E.V.R. lived as a low-caste member of a society in which Hindu texts and traditions informed the ordering of society. It has been well documented that a reliance on Hindu texts was adopted by the British in their attempts to understand the peoples they were attempting to rule during the colonial period, and E.V.R. lived during a time when this awareness was arising in the political context. Due to the rigid and formal understanding of, and interaction with, the traditions and social ordering systems found on the Indian subcontinent as a result of British reliance on Hindu texts and pandits, E.V.R. grew up in a society that was remarkably focused on hierarchy and status. He grew to view religion as the cause for this focus. In founding the Self Respect Movement in 1925, E.V.R.’s intent was to directly confront issues of inequality.358 E.V.R. styled himself as the champion of all underprivileged peoples in south India, and the practice of caste was at the heart of his

356 Ramasami, Collected Works, 68. 357 Ibid., 159 and 489. 358 Geetha and Rajadurai, Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium, 223. 132

reform efforts. Here, I want to focus on suggestions that E.V.R. made that related to practices that Self Respect Movement members could adopt or work towards in order to enact change. One approach E.V.R. took was to suggest legislative routes. For instance, he wrote in Kudi Arasu in August of 1935: “As a measure to put an end to the evils of caste in India, particularly in South India, it is absolutely essential to get things done by proper legislation. It is necessary to agitate for claiming Communal representation in the legislatures through the government.”359 At other times, he calls for the government to support cultural changes through providing enforcement:

The government, which proclaims to root out communalism should have made the practice of putting caste marks as Namam on the foreheads as an offense and imprisoned the offender for one year. Similarly a law should have been passed to imprison for two years those, who wear the thread (Poonul). Are not these symbols indicative of the distinct communities? A government determined to eradicate castes ought to have given scissors to the policemen to cut away the tufts and Poonul. Simply saying that the government is not communal and yet permit the wearing of poonul, keeping tufts, chanting mantras (hymns), declare holidays for the birthdays of gods is condemnable.360 And, at other times, he calls for the adoption of changing practices that could be adopted individual by individual: “The Brahmins and Saivites abstain from consuming non- vegetarian dishes. By this, they have created a high status for themselves. … They talk ill of non-vegetarians (who are accustomed to eat meat, fish, etc,). They call non-vegetarians as low and inferior to them. … So, it is absolutely essential to change our food habits at least in the interests of the ‘lower’ class of people.”361 Or, finally, at times he suggested changes that would require wide social changes, such as widespread changes to the way

359 Ramasami, Collected Works, 274. 360 Ibid., 275. 361 Ibid, 288-289. 133

various “polluting” work was handled or spread across society: “Steps must be taken to eradicate what is called ‘low’ and ‘mean’ in work. Professions which require hard labor must be made easy and light. We should see that such professions are gradually eradicated. Then only we can improve and make the country progressive.”362 His suggestions are wide ranging in scope, but these I highlight here indicative of the variety of approaches he considered or promoted.

Revolt and Caste

Writers in Revolt addressed the practice of caste very regularly. Here, I focus on what suggestions these writers made regarding practices or approaches that could be adopted in the quest to eradicate the way caste was practiced in south India at the time. Writers often addressed ideological perspectives on caste, such as the announcement during the reception address at the The Self-respecters Volunteers Conference, that, “Among the many principles of the Self-respect movement, we place the repudiation of Brahminism, abolition of the caste system, and religious vandalisms as the immediate

issues.”363 This is a typical sort of pronouncement in the pages of Revolt. In fact, another article asked specifically “What does the ‘Revolt’ Revolt Against?” Their answers included: “It revolts against the baseless assertion of superiority by birth or sex, by caste, creed or color,” along with, “it revolts against the inferiority complex of the Non- Brahmin as much against the assumption of superiority of the Brahmin.”364 In this section I intend to go beyond an examination of ideological perspectives and highlight practical suggestions that writers made in order to effect change.

362 Ibid., 323. 363 P. S. Dandapani, “The Self-respect Volunteers Conference, Pattukottai, Reception Address” Revolt, June 5, 1929, 249. 364 Pothi, “What does the ‘Revolt’ Revolt Against?,” Revolt, February 13, 1929, 115. 134

As mentioned in discussions of religion in Revolt, educational reform was a common topic. Similarly, in the context of addressing caste, reform for educational systems found in south India was suggested. For instance: “Are we not aware of the fact that the existence of 7 crores of the so-called untouchables, is due solely to the religious mindedness of the people? Here is then, the duty of the self-respecters to see that religious education is not given at least in the state aided schools. This can be effected only by sending self-respecters to the legislative and administrative bodies.”365 During

the time period during which Revolt was published, there were many conferences that took place, and these often produced resolutions which were released afterwards. Many of these resulted in resolutions addressing education and the eradication of caste. For instance, the South Indian Social Reformers Conference released resolutions including the following:

1. All distinctions based on birth should be abolished.

5. Compulsory elementary education should be enforced in all areas irrespective of caste, creed, or sex. Special facilities should be extended to children of the depressed classes of school-going age by providing free boarding, free supply of books and other materials necessary for the prosecution of their study.

7. The text-books which are prescribed for the students should not contain anything calculated to promote blind beliefs and superstitious ideas. The books should encourage the exercise of common-sense and the spirit of self-confidence and perseverance in the students.366 The Madura Non Brahmin Youth Conference Resolutions included “This Conference is of opinion that Brahmin teachers are mainly responsible for the backwardness of the Non-brahmin boys in their educational matters and requests that Non-brahmin teachers must be appointed in all the schools, especially as Headmasters, under the management

365 “Self-respect and the Elections” Revolt, May 29, 1929, 233. 366 “Resolutions from the South Indian Social Reformers Conference” December 12, 1928, in Revolt – A Radical Weekly in Colonial Madras, 120-121. 135

of the Municipalities and Local Board Institutions.”367 Reporting from the First Ramnad District Adi-Dravida Conference included the observation that “The president, Mr. J.S. Kannappar, in the course of his address dwelt upon the necessity of educating the Adi- Dravidas. He strongly exhorted the audience to fight for better treatment at the hands of the caste Hindus and wipe the caste system out of existence. Important resolutions relating to the social welfare, civic rights, education and general upliftment of the Adi- Dravidas were unanimously passed.”368 The reporting about the Devendrakula Vellalars’

Conference noted that, in addition to discussion regarding the lack of access to clean water many depressed classes of peoples faced in the villages, the recommendation was stressed that “they must try to give education to their children.”369 The importance of education in addressing caste disparities was widely acknowledged. In addition to education, Revolt included regular encouragement to readers to be willing to work toward change and make it part of their lives. For instance, there was much praise given to those who demonstrated commitment to these new ideals:

The first Self-respect Volunteers Conference was held at Pattukottai... We watched with admiration the enthusiastic speeches of the youths and we were not a little struck with wonder especially when the youths boldly stood up showing their readiness for inter-caste and widow remarriages. The ready rush of the sturdy youths to support their solution of temple-entry to all castes, showed their ardor in sacrifice their all on behalf of the depressed millions.370 Or, at other times, writers mixed descriptions of events alongside the topics discussed. Here is an example in which we see the description serving as an example of how ceremonialism can still take place while upholding Self Respect values. [They] wrote:

367 “Madura Non Brahmin Youth Conference Resolutions” Revolt, Sep 1, 1929, 343. 368 “First Ramnad District Adi-Dravida Conference,” Revolt, Aug. 18, 1929, 328. 369 “Devendrakula Vellalars’ Conference, Trichy” Revolt, Oct 6, 1929, 383. 370 “The Volunteers Assemble” Revolt, May 29, 1929, 234. 136

After the reception of the leaders, the procession started to Kalanivasal to the accompaniment of Indian music. A Bajana party singing hymns on Self respect and rationalism consisting of visitors from different places and of the town, accompanied the procession. … The flag bore the mottos ‘Equality, Fraternity, Liberty and Progress’. … Mr. Ramachandran… exhorted the Adi-Dravidas to discard their slave mentality and work for their social and political advancement. … He appealed to the audience to fight for their emancipation from the clutches of the caste Hindus.371 Here, the songs celebrated Self Respect, and there was a flag that demonstrated Self Respect values through the mottos it displayed. These components were unusual and identified participants as a community… one that regularly promoted non-religious values. Other practical ways to effect change were suggested by writers in Revolt. In response to societal pressure to adopt Gandhi’s suggestion to spin one’s own yarn in order to support the handspun (i.e. local, outside of any British involvement) khadi or Khaddar cloth industry, one writer pointed out the toll this would take on those who were economically disadvantaged: “Economically, Khaddar is an impossible proposition. For seven annas you can buy machine milled cloth which handspun and handwoven, costs over a rupee and the stuff wears better and longer than Khaddar. Patriotism or no patriotism, you are not justified in asking the poor consumer to tax himself to the extent of nearly two hundred percent for justifying his objection to modern machinery.”372 He suggested rejecting the pressure to give hours over to producing handspun yarn as part of the adoption of a rational outlook. This suggested went against the widespread adoption of Gandhi’s call to protest by spinning and wearing khaddar. In one article, titled “Easy Solutions,” the author made a series of suggestions that would bring about change in response to economic pressures if adopted by large numbers

371 “First Ramnad District Adi-Dravida Conference,” Revolt, Aug. 18, 1929, 328. 372 “Khaddar” in Revolt – A Radical Weekly in Colonial Madras, Dec 12, 1928, 67. 137

of Self Respectors. For instance, he suggested refusing to pay widely accepted priestly fees: “Let the Non-brahmins who enter temples and those who are forbidden to get into their precincts make it a point to pay no fees or perquisites to the pujaris. The pujaris will resign their duties, seeing the lucrative profession or occupation gone and turn to do there paying jobs.”373 Or, he suggested, they could put their minds toward controlling the access to the food they produced in the fields: “Education and wealth will make interdining and intermarriage easily feasible. … To have both fait accompli in no time, let the down trodden make up their mind to abjure all service to those higher up in the scale unless they interdine and intermarry. The downtrodden are the hard laborers in the field, and can achieve their end easily as the men of the higher classes can turn no furrow or raise no food grains themselves.”374 Lastly, he suggested asserting economic pressure by refusing to pay tenancy rates: “An easy way in which the heads of mutt can be brought to sense is to organize meetings of worshippers wherever the mutts own property and to persuade them to keeping abeyance the Kattukutthakais (tenancy rates to be paid on land owned by religious institutions - editors) left to mutts till the madathipathis discharge their functions legitimately. This may seem an impossible feat. But it is easily done provided a brand of zealous workers start on the crusade.”375 These suggestions lean on a practical perspective of the resources at stake. The author argued that if enough people joined together with common values to effect change, they would have a lot of power. Another writer suggested changing the ways Self Respectors self-identified on the census in order to express their values and push for change. He wrote,

We have a mind not only to ask the self-respecters, as far as possible, not to give their castes in the forthcoming Census, but also to declare that they are not Hindus

373 Ritus, “Easy Solutions,” Revolt, July 21, 1929, 293. 374 Ibid. 375 Ibid. 138

but that they are either Self-Respecters, Rationalists, or Free thinkers. We insist upon giving up the name ‘Hindu’ because, it is in the first place a fabulous name, having no sane origin nor meaning behind it. Then secondly, the term ‘Hindu’ itself is synonymous with the divisions of caste, and so inseparable are both, that the one vanishes of its own accord, when the other is done away with.376 These suggestions show not only an adoptable practice that Self Respecters could choose, but these also demonstrate the goals of protesting an unquestioning acceptance of the term “Hindu,” alongside the goal of undermining the practice of caste. Writers in Revolt went beyond asking readers to change the ways they self- identified on the census. They also suggested daily changes that could be made, such as

to their appearances: “We are astonished that in this age of enlightenment, cultured men and graduates of universities are not ashamed to disfigure their foreheads with caste marks. The 'sacred' thread across the shoulders may symbolize superiority but it certainly is a flagrant denial of the wearer's manliness. The homa and the muttering at Sradh, birth, marriage and death ceremonies warp the imagination and engulf the mind in utter darkness. A civilized society will penalize the performance of rituals.”377 Sarah Hodges wrote a particularly relevant article about how Self Respect was performed, and she mentions specific dress. For women, this often meant a rejection of common symbols of auspicious-ness or marriage status, such as the thali, the pottu (bindi), or wearing flowers in the hair.378 As Hodges notes, “The distinctive appearance of many Self Respecters was about making a public, confrontational statement.”379

376 “Caste” in Revolt – A Radical Weekly in Colonial Madras, Jan 19, 1930, 280. 377 “The Work Ahead,” Revolt (Feb. 13, 1929), 113. 378 Sarah Hodges, “Revolutionary Family Life and the Self Respect Movement in Tamil South India, 1926- 1949,” Contributions to Indian Sociology, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2005, 258. 379 Ibid. 139

All of the suggestions noted in this section represent concrete, adoptable practices that members of the Self Respect Movement could adopt as outward signs of their rationalist approaches to reform in south India.

Reflections on Caste

One component of caste in south India, in the Dravidian movement, is a focus on not only the antagonism between high-caste and low-caste peoples, but also on struggles between low-caste and lower-caste groups. Narendra Subramanian notes how this phenomenon can shift traditional power dynamics:

As populism presents itself as the opponent of dominant elites and ethno- nationalism sometimes targets allegedly dominant ethnic groups as enemies, such ideologies have the capacity to inspire opposition to hegemonic projects by urging subordinate groups to challenge their subordination. However, such movements might equally well be hegemonic in character – they might seek to replace old elites with emergent counter-elites, associated with somewhat different interests and outlooks, without the empowerment of subordinate groups.380 Once parties were established as powerful political entities, they often became rather elitist themselves. The Justice Party was made up of elitist non-Brahmins from its beginning, and political scientist Robert Hardgrave notes that “The Justice reforms had been highly communal in character, reinforcing caste rigidity, the very tyranny they sought to destroy.”381 This was one aspect of politics which the Self-Respect movement sought to rebel against, but even E.V.R. perpetuated non-egalitarian practices within his political party. Subramanian points out that “Periar regarded the organizations he led as his patrimony, not distinguishing his personal wealth from party funds. He likened his bond with his followers as a master-servant relationship (and treated many of them little better than domestic servants typically were), even while expecting them to fend for

380 Subramanian, Ethnicity and Populist Mobilization, 101. 381 Hardgrave, Essays in the Political Sociology of South India, 24. 140

themselves financially.”382 All of the early non-Brahmin rhetoric “represented a split consciousness: as a counter hegemonic ideology, operative as political propaganda and social message, it possessed a radical dimension… But at the level of pragmatic, everyday politics, and in the context of rule and governance, Non-Brahminism served to legitimize the private prejudices and ambitions of zamindars, bankers, traders and men of property.”383 Before I leave the topic of caste for now, I also want to point out a converse point

to the above about E.V.R. and his conceptualization of power relationships in India. M.S.S. Pandian notes about E.V.R.: “In contrast to the mainstream nationalist thought, he believed that no one could speak for and represent the victims of the past, but themselves. …his discourse on the nation proliferated with innumerable oppressors and oppressed, each changing into the other contextually and relationally: a sudra male was the oppressed in relation to the Brahmin, but simultaneously he was an oppressor in relation to women.”384

LANGUAGE

As discussed in Chapter One, along with the changes brought about by printing ancient texts and new modern prose, Tamil language mass communication via newspapers had a large effect on the political and cultural awareness of the population. Das Gupta notes modernization of the language due to common usage in new periodicals on an all-India scale: “The enterprise of such communication of consciousness was directly related to the growth of modern prose styles and modern literature in general in

382 Subramanian, Ethnicity and Populist Mobilization, 117. 383 Geetha and Rajadurai, Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium, 219. 384 M. S. S. Pandian, "'Denationalising' the Past: 'Nation' in E V Ramasamy's Political Discourse." Economic and Political Weekly 28, no. 42 (1993): 2285. 141

the Indian languages. In their quest for new audiences, the organizational pioneers became linguistic reformers and creators of linguistic pride in different regions of India.”385 The first Tamil-language newspaper, Swadesamitran, was founded in 1882.386 Not only did these changes contribute to the rapid spread of knowledge, information, and political propaganda throughout the Tamil speaking population, but they also affected the Tamil language itself. In fact, “since the news which were invariably read out to the unlettered masses had to be presented in very simple Tamil, new words had to be

coined.”387 This contributed to increased usage of Tamil. The rise in Tamil usage continued to lead to further demands for Tamil also to be used in other venues such as political speeches, administration, and University classes. Articles appeared in periodicals with complaints such as: “Tamil is not properly encouraged now in the present universities and that many foreign Aryans, who wielded an influence in the University, brought the language to its present low condition and observes [sic] that the Tamilians will attain progress and acquire political influence… only if the Tamil language is improved.”388 We see here that the claims of foreign Aryan attempts at dominance continue, along with the demands for empowerment of the Tamil language. Tamil was, in the meanwhile, utilized very methodically for political purposes. One Congressman noted in 1937 that “Many were now unable to converse in Tamil without using English words. But thanks to the political upheaval and the persistent propaganda carried on for the revival of the vernaculars, conditions were gradually

385 Das Gupta, Language Conflict and National Development, 81. 386 S. Muthiah, “The First Tamil newspapers,” The Hindu (Sept. 25, 2017). https://www.thehindu.com/society/first-newspapers-of-tamil-nadu/article19751056.ece 387 Saroja Sundararajan, Madras Presidency in Pre-Gandhian Era: A Historical Perspective 1884-1915 (Pondicherry: Lalitha Publications, 1997), 43. 388 Quoted in Barnett, The Politics of Cultural Nationalism in South India, 27. This is a summary from a Government of India translator of an article which appeared in the Tamil journal Dravidan on September 29, 1920. 142

changing and the educated classes were realizing that no mass awakening was possible unless propaganda was done with the aid of the mother-tongue.”389

E.V.R. and Language

Language was central to E.V.R.’s re-definition of power relationships, for he was conscious of the potential of language to be used as a platform for change. Three examples of this are found in his approach to Tamil, and I will describe each of them further below. First, he rejected romanticizing the Tamil language and its devotional

movement. He insisted on using commonly used Tamil, rather than “proper” literary

Tamil, in both his speeches and voluminous writings.390 Second, although he typically spoke and wrote in colloquial Tamil, E.V.R. held English in very high regard. Early on, he praised English over Tamil, although that changed over time as Tamil identity grew regionally, and as the Hindi “threat” emerged in the mid-1930s.391 Third, at times, E.V.R. made concrete suggestions about specific words that needed to change or go away in order to effect reform. The significance of his approach of rejecting Tamil devotionalism is more fully understood with the help of Sumathi Ramaswamy. She writes, “More so than the other devotional regimes, Dravidianism’s driving imperative was a vision of the Tamil

389 Quoted in Eugene F. Irschick, Tamil Revivalism in the 1930’s (Madras: Cre-A, 1986), 216. Originally reported in The Hindu on August 15, 1936. Irschick writes of the access to publishing and increasing literacy playing a role in the politicization of the non-Brahmin population. D. A. Washbrook disagrees, arguing that there is no evidence that English education had produced a shift in the social pattern of learning. Washbrook also argues that even vernacular newspapers did not perform well unless they were associated with Brahmin support. D. A. Washbrook, The Emergence of Provincial Politics, 275-77. Ultimately, Washbrook argues that the content of these provincial political movements were not as important as the processes that were changing, i.e., increasingly linkages between people and also between organizations. 390 E.V.R.’s approach to Tamil language is part of a larger analysis of his role in defining the categories “Brahmin” and “non-Brahmin” by Pandian in Brahmin and Non-Brahmin. 391 Late in life, E.V.R.’s preference for English returned, as evidenced by quotes Anita Diehl reported from interviews she conducted with him in the early 1970’s. Diehl, Periyar E.V. Ramaswami, 58-65. 143

community as an autonomous racial and political entity, even nation, whose sacral center is occupied solely by Tamil.”392 As we have seen, Ramaswamy traces the emergence of iconography associated with “mother Tamil” who begins to be treated as an actual goddess and worshipped as such. Viewed in such a context, E.V.R.’s rejection of “pure Tamil” – formal, traditional Tamil – takes on his usual iconoclastic meaning. E.V.R. explicitly distanced himself from Tamil devotionalism, saying, “I do not have any devotion for Tamil, either as mother tongue or as the language of the nation… Such an

attachment and devotion is foolish... I do not praise something just because it is my language or my land or my religion or because it is something ancient.”393 Instead,

E.V.R. insisted on what he called “rationality” (ப�鏍தறி�) in his approach to Tamil. He

believed that one should consider the value of language based on its quality or utility. Although E.V.R. rejected the use of overly formalized Tamil because of its elitist nature, E.V.R. praised the English language. Even though many Indians viewed the British as oppressors, E.V.R. viewed them as having brought knowledge to the country, and as liberators for south India. E.V.R. applied a utilitarian or pragmatic approach to language, and accordingly, he claimed, “It is no exaggeration to say that it is the knowledge of English which has kindled the spirit of freedom in our people who have been cherishing enslaved lives. It is English which gave us the wisdom to reject monarchy and to desire a republic… It gave us the knowledge that men and women are equal.”394 E.V.R.’s views on language are summed up by his statement: “The greatness of a language depends on the ideas it conveys.”395

392 Ramaswamy, Passions of the Tongue, 63. 393 Quoted in ibid., 235. Originally published in Kudi Arasu, Aug. 6, 1939, 1-2. 394 Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin, 223-4. 395 Ibid., 222. This attitude is also discussed by Diehl, Aloysius, and Geetha and Rajadurai. 144

Although he regarded English with a great deal of respect, E.V.R. did support regional languages. He gradually became a proponent of Tamil and supporter of it. This shift can be seen in part in the context of the fight against the imposition of Hindi in south India.396 He wrote, for instance: “Our language will make our people unite under the banner of Tamilnadu and Tamil language. … A time will come for unity. This will go on till there is an end to the North Indian domination. We will be carving out an independent sovereign state for us.”397 E.V.R. was critical of the use of Sanskrit or Hindi words, arguing that they often legitimized inequality. For instance, he disapproved of words that came from Sanskrit such as kanniga dhanam (part of the marriage ceremony, “giving away of the daughter”) (in Tamil: கꟍன�கா தான믍, in Sanskrit: क�का दान), pativratha

(“virtuous wife”) (in Tamil: பதிவ�ரதா, in Sanskrit: प�तव्रता) and jati (“caste”, “race”) (in

Tamil: சாதி or ஜாதி, in Sanskrit: जा�त).398

E.V.R. worked to improve the functionality of Tamil. In 1940 there was a push to modernize Tamil by coining new terms rather than manipulating existing, “legitimate” (but complex) vocabulary. E.V.R. supported the coining of simple, easy terms without too much preoccupation about their origins, saying, “We can borrow words from any language which is in keeping with our dignity and self-respect, and which will instill a sense of independence and rid us of our present debasement. It does not matter with which language we are associated.”399 He seems to have considered language and vocabulary to have importance from early in his political career, for the Tamil name for

the Self Respect Movement, �யம�யாைத இய埍க믍, included a word for “self

396 The importance of the anti-Hindi movement to the success of the Self Respect Movement has been noted by Aloysius, Geetha and Rajadurai, Pandian, and Nambi Arooran. 397 Ramasami, Collected Works, 503. 398 Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin, 222. 399 A. R. Venkatachalapathy, In Those Days There Was No Coffee: Writings in Cultural History (New Delhi: Yoda Press: Distributed by Foundation Books, 2006), 155. 145

respect” – �யம�யாைத – which was not in common usage at the time. The Tamil

Lexicon, printed originally between 1924-1936, did not have an entry for �யம�யாைத, and searching for this entry in the Lexicon does not bring up any results. However, the

Lexicon does have a listing under the entry தꟍமதிꯍ� (“self-esteem”), and this displays

the option of �யம�யாைத (“self-respect”) in its secondary notation, with a note this

this is a “modern” alternative.400 A modern dictionary, 埍�யாவ�ꟍ த쟍கால鏍 தமி폍

அகராதி (“Dictionary of Contemporary Tamil”) includes the entry �யம�யாைத (“self- respect or self-esteem”) in its listing. It also includes �யம�யாைத இய埍க믍, with the

entry “a social movement (in Tamil Nadu) based on one’s faith in the dignity and reasoning power of the individual; self-respect movement.”401 E.V.R. explained his perspective on Tamil, writing,

The love of one’s tongue is the foremost of all loves that are required of the people born in our land. … If I love Tamil, it is not merely because it is the mother-tongue or the language of the Tamil Nadu State. Nor am I attached to Tamil by reason of its uniqueness or its antiquity or its being the language that Lord Shiva spoke or its being the creation of Sage Agasthya. I can love a thing only for its innate goodness and the benefits that may flow from it. … If I love Tamil, it is because I am aware of the advantages I expect though it and the measure of loss that will occur by the absence of it.402 An appreciation of utility led E.V.R. to insist on using common Tamil – as opposed to formal Tamil - exclusively. He even spurned the emphasis on grammar that is found in written Tamil and embraced the fact that he was writing in a style more closely

related to how the common person spoke.403 E.V.R. refused to privilege the written word, either in his writing style, or materially. Under his leadership, the Self-Respect

400 Tamil Lexicon. Madras: Diocesan Press, 1924-36. 6 vol; [3944 pp.]. Followed by: Supplement. 1938-9. 3 parts [423 pp.] Viewed via https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/tamil-lex/, p. 1810. 401 Dictionary of Contemporary Tamil (Tamil-Tamil-English) (埍�யாவ�ꟍ த쟍கால鏍 தமி폍 அகராதி) Chennai: Cre-A, 2005, 453-4. 402 Ramasami, Collected Works, 549. 403 Pandian, Brahmin and Non-Brahmin, 212. 146

Movement printed large amounts of material as cheaply as possible. This allowed for mass distribution with a focus on accessibility by the reader. E.V.R. continually rejected the elitism that “proper” Tamil represented. He and the Self Respect Movement utilized language to reach out to subaltern populations and empower discourse in revolutionary ways. They adopted the word samadharma (சமதரம믍, or “equal rights”)404 as the name

for socialist principles, and this led to the naming of a journal by the same name, and a Samadharma Party of South India, formed in 1933.405 He attempted to popularize the

term “Thozhar” (ேதாழ쏍, “comrade”)406 to be used instead of honorifics such as “Sri” or

“Thiru”.407 The Self Respect Movement and Periyar also regularly railed against

superstition (�டந믍ப�埍ைக), which is a term that has grown to be increasingly recognized.408 E.V.R. made specific suggestions for how Tamil could be utilized to effect change. He pointed out, “It is my opinion that the Tamil Language is capable of contributing to the progress and freedom of the people in all fields, and will be conducive to a life of dignity and reason. … I am aware that Tamil has arts, customs, traditions, and an appropriate vocabulary, which can contribute to a greater advancement than most

404 This is discussed many times in Geetha and Rajadurai. See, for instance, 351-2, for a discussion of the ideology behind this term, and Chapter 11 for a more thorough discussion of the role this idea played in the Self Respect Movement. In 2005, the Dictionary of Contemporary Tamil defines சமதரம믍 as “equal justice”, 403. 405 Geetha and Rajadurai, Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium, 529-30. This party was originally established as a new part of the Self Respect Movement, following E.V.R.’s visit to Russia. However, it split off in 1933. The Self Respect Movement’s usage of this word is also explored by Matthew Baxter in “Bhutams of Marx and the Movement of Self-Respecters.” 406 This word is listed in the Dictionary of Contemporary Tamil, 598, though with the note “(in certain political movements).” 407 Venkatachalapathy, From Erode to Volga, 128. 408 Dictionary of Contemporary Tamil, 862, and Tamil Lexicon. Discussion of the long-term importance of this term and how it continues to affect politics and activism in Tamil Nadu can be found in Francis Cody, The Light of Knowledge: Literacy Activism and the Politics of Writing in South India (Cornell: Cornell University Press, 2013), 50-55. 147

other Indian languages.”409 He suggested using certain words differently or eliminating them altogether. Sometimes this was general: “The words used to call individuals with disrespect and disgrace should be given up.”410 And sometimes this was specific: “I don’t accept the words, ‘wedding’, or ‘marriage’. I term it only as a contract for companionship in life.”411 One alternative term E.V.R. suggested was valkkaittunai412

(வா폍埍ைக鏍�ைண, “partner (in married life)”413). He pointed out imbalances in

vocabulary relating to gender, pointing out that there was no Tamil word for a male

prostitute, for instance. He coined such a word, vibacharan (வ�ப母சாரꟍ),414 although

this alternative is still not found in the Dictionary of Contemporary Tamil. E.V.R. campaigned for concrete change through his approach to language, and he maintained awareness of the everyday enactment of values that language represents. Language was a field in which adopted change would be a regular reminder to Self Respecters of their values; and that may mark them as being part of this community, also.

Revolt and Language

Writers in Revolt demonstrate both an awareness of the cultural impact of language, and the adoption of a campaign to effect change through language usage. By looking at the ways linguistic evidence and emotive phrasing was being used, we can see

409 Ramasami, Collected Works, 550. 410 Ibid., 308 411411 Ibid., 574. Geetha and Rajadurai claim that E.V.R. adopted the term “Vazhkai Oppandam” to mean “agreement/contract for life, that is, for conducting the business of life.” Geetha and Rajadurai, Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium, 485. 412 Hodges, “Revolutionary Family Life”, 266. 413 Dictionary of Contemporary Tamil, 925. 414 Meena Kandasamy, “Translators Note,” Why Were Women Enslaved? E.V.R. (Chennai: The Periyar Self Respect Propaganda Institution, 2007) x. 148

language not only reflecting social reality; but also being used as an instrument of power which transforms reality.415 A typical portrayal from a 1929 article in Revolt states,

Let us contemplate for a moment the condition of ancient Tamilian society… Untouchability, unapproachability, unseeability and other monstrous customs were unknown to our ancients. Caste distinctions, religious dissensions and class disputes were absent. The word Jati which connotes caste, is not of Tamil origin. Every human being had equal rights of access to tanks, temples, Choultries, etc. People regulated their lives in a spirit of brotherliness towards their fellow beings. Love was their watchword and hatred never found a place in their hearts. They worshipped nature and led a life of utter simplicity resulting in true happiness. Ever since the days when the Aryans penetrated the south and attempted to strengthen and consolidate their position a great calamity overtook the country.416 The Dravidian movement took up causes such as the demand, first stated in 1939, for a separate state called Dravidanad, and the anti-Hindi campaign which championed the greatness of Tamil language while rejecting the Government of India’s attempts to establish Hindi as the national language of India.417 The quote above demonstrates the polarization of Tamil society through the identification of the practice of caste with Aryan, “foreign” culture. Further, the sentence

which notes that the word “jati” (சாதி or ஜாதி) is not of Tamil origin shows the ways linguistic analysis was appropriated to do the cultural work of rejecting Aryan or Sanskritic values. The evidence found within linguistic analysis was seen as irrefutable verification of the existence of ancient Dravidian culture as separate from Aryan culture. Therefore the validity of Dravidian values and cultural practices which were being discovered in early Tamil texts could be relied upon. Further, apart from the differences

415 Ramaswamy, Passions of the Tongue, 9. This idea, the phenomenology of language ideology, is also discussed by Bernard Bate in Tamil Oratory and the Dravidian Aesthetic, 7. 416 Quoted in Barnett, The Politics of Cultural Nationalism in South India, 44. Originally written by W.P.A. Soundrapandian in the journal Revolt, 1, No. 16 (February 20, 1929). 417 A.N. Sattanathan, The Dravidian Movement in Tamil Nadu and its Legacy (Madras: University of Madras, 1982), 19. See also Barnett, The Politics of Cultural Nationalism in South India, Chapter Four, for discussion of the elaboration of the Dravidian identity throughout these movements. 149

being shown in the quote between Dravidian and Aryan culture, in the final sentence we find Aryans portrayed as harboring malevolent intentions upon their arrival in south India. In one article titled “National Language vs. Common Language”, the author went beyond the question of Tamil versus Hindi versus English, and suggested the adoption of a neutral common language:

If illiteracy is to be obliterated among the people the advocacy of the study of three languages is a menace. There must be one common language for the classes and the masses alike which will completely satisfy our secular needs. The problem of the multiplicity of scripts must also be tackled. There is no necessity for so many scripts while the genius of all the scripts in the country employed in uniting the different languages is the same. The scripts of all of them are unscientific. ... We must agree on the adoption of universal script so scientifically revised that one can learn it in a few hours time. The feat is not impossible.418 This quote is notable for the force with which a goal of secularity comes through, and the championing of a scientific approach. Elsewhere, there is evidence of resistance against the imposition of Hindi that was mentioned in Chapter One. In an article written as a response to Madan Mohan Malaviya’s visit to south India, in which Malaviya championed Hindi as a viable option as a national language for all of India, Revolt published:

When the south is making efforts to shake the dust of a Sanscritic culture off its feet, the demon is taking a new avatar and is threatening us with destruction, in the shape of Hindi. ... Let us take for instance the question of script. We once before drew the attention of the readers to the chaotic and unscientific nature of the Devanagari script, employed in writing Hindi. It is a colossal waste of time and energy to try to acquire a knowledge of about 566 characters it contains… Nationalism in Hindi is therefore a camouflage. It is a movement which ultimately aims at a cultural conquest of the south.419

418 Kirk, “National Language vs. Common Language”, Revolt, Feb. 13, 1929, 117. 419 Kirk, “Malaviyaji’s Last Trump Card,” Revolt (May 22, 1929), 229. 150

The same author, who published under the name “Kirk,” wrote,

The Self Respect Movement has enlightened the masses. The Brahmin high priests with Hindu religion and ethics can no longer enslave the souls of the masses. … There is yet another aspect of religion-nationalism of Malaviyaji which is pregnant with grave danger, but which we are likely to ignore. It is his advocacy of Hindi as lingua franca in the place of Sanskrit, which he says can no longer be the common language.420 There was very strong resistance to the suggestion from the Indian National Congress that Hindi be established as the new lingua franca across India.421

Finally, there is also evidence of suggestions or protests related to the usage of specific words in the Tamil language. This ranged from two plans announced at the Self- respecters Volunteers Conference in 1929, including the retributive adoption of a disrespectful term: “...the Brahmins... and the newspapers... are using the degrading words like 'Sudra,' 'the people of the 4th caste' and 'Panchama.' So this conference insists that if they persist in using these words any more, we will without any hesitation use the word Mlechas the equivalent for Brahmins as found in the Tamil dictionaries.”422 And, this conference also announced a boycott based on language choices: “This conference decides to boycott those papers that use the degrading words like 'Sudra, Panchama and the people of the 4th caste' and those that advocate the views of the Varnashramadharma.”423 The Self Respect Movement encouraged youths to adopt habits based on their suggestions, including the ways language was used: “This Conference requests that even during ordinary conversations words indicating inferiority or

420 Ibid. 421 See, for instance, Ramaswamy, Passions of the Tongue. 422 P. S. Dandapani, “The Self-respect Volunteers Conference, Pattukottai, Reception Address” Revolt, June 5, 1929, 249. 423 Ibid. 151

superiority as of master and servant should not be used and specially requests the youths to cultivate this habit from the beginning.”424

Reflections on Language

This section aims at describing ideologies behind the rise in the importance of regional languages in south India and how these manifested attempts to effect change by the adoption or eradication of ways language is used. We have seen how the “exposure” and “consolidation” of literary knowledge are crucial processes in creating modern

cultural identities among these populations.425 A.D. Smith states that for nationalism, “its emphasis falls upon the special and unique characteristics of an entity assumed to possess its own peculiar and inward laws of functioning, namely, the particular chosen ‘nation’ whose claims are being advanced. It is in the culture, and especially its history, language and religion, that these inner laws and rhythms may be discovered.”426 By utilizing a variety of channels, we have seen language and linguistic identity be explicitly called upon through a peoples’ search for their autonomy. As they campaigned for reform, E.V.R. and the Self Respect Movement demonstrated ongoing awareness of the importance of language and which vocabulary is used, and this is one concrete, practical approach that they adopted in their quest for change.

GENDER

Gender is a third area in which there has been a great deal of change and reflection in India. An example of several trends swirling around the practice of gender on the subcontinent can be viewed through the debate around sati. Sati (சதி) is the

424 “Madura Non Brahmin Youth Conference Resolutions” Revolt, Sep 1, 1929, 343. 425 Venkatachalapathy, In Those Days There Was No Coffee, 283. 426 A.D. Smith, “The Diffusion of Nationalism,” The British Journal of Sociology (June, 1978), 244. 152

practice of immolation of a living woman on her husband’s funeral pyre. Sati was seen by the British as shockingly immoral and horrific, and the practice was formally outlawed in 1829.427 I mention sati at the outset of this section to highlight many trends relating to gender in India, including: idealization of womanhood, a lack of representation for Indian women, and an invisibility of low-caste women. This section examines how questions related to gender were approached during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Historical and Theoretical Locations

The nineteenth century was characterized by patriarchal attitudes from the British and, in other ways, from Indians also. Women did not have many opportunities for independent action or campaigns for change. However, in line with the growing demands across India for education, establishment of voluntary associations, and cultural self- reflection, women’s movements began growing also. Accordingly, a great deal of the early role of the women’s movement was located around or within the Indian nationalist movement. The women’s role in the nationalist movement tended, especially initially, to be largely directed by men, either overtly, or through the production of ideals that defined

women as the locus of tradition and purity.428 In an argument that runs through much of the material on gender and colonialism in India, Partha Chatterjee suggests a set of alignments he believes were adopted by the Indian elite in its attempt to create a zone of autonomy wherein the British had no influence. In ordering the categories of outer/material/male in opposition to inner/spiritual/female, a nationalist paradigm was created which posited women as

427 Carson, The East India Company and Religion, 183-5. 428 Partha Chatterjee points this out, writing, “if the modern woman differed from her predecessors, she did so as the result of social policies pursued by men.” Partha Chatterjee, The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Post-colonial Histories (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 135. 153

symbolic of the authentic and spiritual heart of India. Women come to be idealized as protectors of “true” India, found within the home – a realm in which Indian nationalists fought to keep colonial policy ineffective.429 Chatterjee’s formulation of “inner” and “outer” realms of nationalism brings a gendered reading to the process of national definition. In south India and across the subcontinent, women’s place in the home was held up as natural and traditional. Chatterjee helps us understand the ways women were seen

by mainstream nationalists, explaining the construction of the “true essence” of the Indian woman as “self-sacrificing, compassionate, spiritual, and possessing great resources of emotional strength drawn from personal faith and devotion. This essence,” the nationalists thought, “needed to be recovered from the morass of bigotry and superstition into which tradition had fallen, and reform and education could accomplish this.”430 Uma Chakravarti expands on this theme, explaining that, “Knowledge about the past ultimately ended in the creation of a persuasive rhetoric, shared by Hindu liberals and conservatives alike, especially in relation to the myth of the golden age of Indian womanhood as located in the Vedic period.”431 C.S. Lakshmi notes that in the Tamil

429 Ibid. The core of his argument around this gendered paradigm is also reprinted, in a slightly varied form, in Kumkum Sangari and Sudesh Vaid, Recasting Women: Essays in Indian Colonial History (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1990), chapter 7. 430 Chatterjee, The Nation and its Fragments, 144. 431 Uma Chakravarti, “Whatever Happened to the Vedic Dasi?: Orientalism, Nationalism, and a Script for the Past.” in Recasting Women: Essays in Indian Colonial History, eds. Kumkum Sangari and Sudesh Vaid (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1990), 28. This essay focuses especially on this process as “an amalgamation of Brahminical and Kshatriya values.” Ibid., 29. It is debatable whether these influences would have been as important in the extreme south of India (for instance, the Dravidianists would probably have denied that this process would have been as important among Dravidians). However, I believe that the reification of this process was encouraged all over India through the colonial project, regardless of ancient history. Additionally, C.S. Lakshmi argues that this process was mirrored in south India in regards to classical Tamil texts. See C.S. Lakshmi, “Mother, Mother-Community and Mother-Politics in Tamil Nadu.” Economic and Political Weekly. 25 (October 20-29, 1990). 154

context, “a non-changing, static mother-metaphor as a historical continuity, necessitates no redefinitions or search of who the Tamil man is or what his actions ought to be.”432 Mohandas K. Gandhi, as one of India’s emblematic nationalist leaders, is a very interesting figure when it comes to discussions of gender. The nationalist paradigm that Chatterjee discusses above was certainly supported and furthered by Gandhi. Geraldine Forbes notes, “Gandhi was constructing a new ideal for Indian woman that rewrote passivity and self-suffering as strength.”433 Tanika Sarkar agrees, writing, “The woman

and the peasant were, moreover, valorized as ideal satyagrahis, as already-constituted ideal political subjects by virtue of their nurturing functions, their moral strategies, and their meekness. Ironically, this privileging doubly confirmed their social subordination and submissiveness.”434 Although Gandhi is commonly remembered for his unique approach to marshaling effective anti-colonialist support and action, perhaps gender is one area in which Gandhi was less exceptional. Anne McClintock notes five major ways women’s roles were appropriated under nationalism,435 and all five are seen in Gandhi’s (and, in general, Indian nationalism’s) approach. As Indians increasingly intentionally defined themselves outside the boundaries of the British empire, women’s roles shifted. Gail Minault traces the changing intellectual and religious atmosphere in late colonial India as she highlights the emerging publicly

432 Lakshmi, “Mother, Mother-Community and Mother-Politics,” WS-73. 433 Forbes, Women in Modern India, 132. 434 Tanika Sarkar, Hindu Wife, Hindu Nation: Community, Religion and Cultural Nationalism (London: Hurst & Company, 2001), 121. 435 McClintock suggests these five ways women have been implicated in nationalism: 1) As biological reproducers of the nation; 2) as reproducers of the boundaries of national groups through sexual or marital restrictions [Gandhi generally supported caste restrictions]; 3) as producers of the national culture; 4) as symbolic signifiers of national difference; 5) as active participants in national struggles. McClintock notes that these observations are drawn from Nira Yuval-Davis and Floya Anthias. Anne McClintock, "'No Longer in a Future Heaven': Gender, Race and Nationalism," in Dangerous Liasons: Gender, Nation and Postcolonial Perspectives, eds. Anne McClintock and Aamir Mufti (Minneapolis, Minn., 1997), 90. 155

visible presence of women. Through examining women’s writings, magazines, and educational or political activity (all of which were small, but growing, phenomena in the late nineteenth century), Minault is able to characterize generational changes: “Increasingly comfortable in wider social roles that were extensions of her traditional household duties, the educated Muslim woman bore daughters who grew up going to school, reading women’s magazines, and coping with accelerated social change… They were also conscious of women’s emancipation and suffrage elsewhere in the world.”436

Geraldine Forbes gives us a good example of how quickly changes were taking place, noting: “A new journal for women, begun in 1875, stated: ‘We will not discuss political events and controversies because politics would not be interesting or intelligible to women in this country at present.’”437 A mere fifteen years later, two women attended a meeting of the Indian National Congress, and thereafter women were always present in that organization.438 As an example of women’s places in the political movements in India at the time and how they were changing, we see that Gandhi at times encouraged women’s participation, but only in certain ways. For instance, he required his wife’s participation in lifestyle changes, and held her up as a model for all women, yet did not want women getting out and marching and protesting.439 In response to their exclusion from the Dandi Salt March in 1930, the Women’s Indian Association wrote, “This division of sexes in a non-violent campaign seems to us unnatural and against all the awakened consciousness of India’s destiny. … Women ask that no conferences, congress or commissions dealing

436 Gail Minault, Secluded Scholars: Women's Education and Muslim Social Reform in Colonial India (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 267. 437 Forbes, Women in Modern India, 130. 438 Ibid. 439 Ibid., 132-35. 15 6

with the welfare of India should be held without the presence of their women.”440 Gandhi accepted this request, and by the end of that year, over four hundred women had been arrested through participation in protests.441

E.V.R., the Self Respect Movement, and Gender

The Self Respect Movement explicitly aimed to invert power dynamics of traditional gender relationships in south India in the early twentieth century. One site of inversion was found in the creation of women’s Self Respect conferences. These were

organized by and generally conducted by women,442 which was in contrast to the norms of the mainstream nationalist movement. E.V.R. also felt strongly about the education of women. He saw education as a gateway to freeing women from their subordination. E.V.R. pointed out, “the quality of education imparted to woman till now has been one of training woman to be an efficient housewife.”443 S. Anandhi points out the further ambitions of E.V.R.’s thoughts on education for women, noting that E.V.R. argued, “women’s education should have the aim of providing employment for women and thus making them economically independent.”444 Yet, in many ways, the Self Respect Movement waged its battles for women’s empowerment in the home. On a pan-Indian level, Chatterjee says, “The home, I suggest, was not a complementary but rather the original site on which the hegemonic project of nationalism was launched.”445 In south India, the Self Respect Movement attempted to change the institution of marriage, to educate women and increase their independence,

440 Dr. V. Rajalakshmi, The Political Behaviour of Women in Tamil Nadu (New Delhi: Inter-India Publications, 1985), 20. 441 Ibid. 442 Geetha and Rajadurai, Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium, 413-19. 443 Quoted in Anandhi, “Women’s Question,” 25. 444 Ibid. 445 Ibid., 147. 157

and to bridge categories of caste and religion through not only rhetoric, but also through actively involving women from a variety of backgrounds. This was all part of the attempt to change power dynamics which began in the home and spread out across society. There is a dark side of the Self Respect Movement that falls into this criticism. The demand for rationalization and education left out all of the women who did not have access to such liberal and modern ideas, or access to resources. Kamala Visweswaran likewise points out the tendency for the scholar to recover primarily the voices of the

middle-class subjects when attempting feminist histories.446 There were other ways in which the Self Respect Movement did not manage to break out of culturally prescribed views of femininity. Even as the Self Respect Movement and E.V.R. vociferously rejected the fetishization of women’s roles, they often upheld it in their rhetoric. C.S. Lakshmi tells us that the Self Respect women’s conferences “...were referred to as ‘Mother’s Conferences’ and ‘Mother’s Meetings’ by the movement. When women went on a procession protesting against Hindi in the thirties, it was referred to as ‘Mother’s Procession.’ In some of these mothers’ meetings, the topics discussed were ‘Women’s education’; ‘Mothers who helped Tamil grow’; ‘Women in Sangam Age’; ‘Mothers and compulsory Hindi’; etc.”447 Here we may heed Chatterjee’s admonition that, “we will also do well to remember that sovereignty over language, a tricky business under the best of circumstances, is doubly vitiated for those who were subordinated, at one and the same time, to colonialism as well as to a nationalist patriarchy.”448

446 Kamala Visweswaran, “Small Speeches, Subaltern Gender: Nationalist Ideology and its Historiography,” in Subaltern Studies IX, eds. Shahid Amin and Dipesh Chakrabarty (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996), 89. 447 Lakshmi, “Mother, Mother-Community and Mother-Politics,” WS-75. 448 Chatterjee, The Nation and its Fragments, 140. 158

This section highlights south Indian women’s history, especially through the Self Respect Movement, in the context of postcolonial theorizations on the “nation.” “History” as narrative is a common theme throughout postcolonial theory. Thinking through the development of perceptions of the idea of nations or nationhood gives a perspective on how knowledge is created and what sorts of power are inherent in the process. Said’s argument about the hegemony of knowledge production is useful in that it reminds us to question the conditions surrounding the study of any “other.” In this context, movements such as the Self Respect Movement are fascinating in their insistence on rejecting perceived power structures and reorienting their own values to reflect resistance. Which issues the Self Respect Movement interrogated as sites of social criticism and which ones they did not can point us towards further understanding of identity and resistance formation in south India during the late twentieth century. The Self Respect Movement, even while asserting an authentic regional identity, simultaneously privileged many outside influences, such as Soviet Russia’s example,449 western atheist philosophers (i.e. Robert Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell, for instance),450 and the postulation of the British as rulers preferable to Brahmins. The negotiations of power and resistance are fascinating in the context of south India during the early twentieth century.

Contributors to Puratchi and Kumaran

My source for women’s voices in this section is a collection of women’s Self Respect writings collected, edited, and translated by K. Srilata, a professor at the Indian Institute of Technology in Chennai. When she was in graduate school, Srilata wrote her

449 Periyar E.V. Ramasamy: A Biographical Sketch (Chennai: The Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institute, 2004), 16. 450 Visswanathan, The Political Career of E. V. Ramasami Naicker, 150. 159

dissertation on the role of the non-Brahmin press in the Dravidian movement, and in her collection, she stresses the importance of these essays as a part of that movement. She includes essays by seven women, including between one and six essays by each of these authors. Additionally, Srilata includes eight chapters of a novel written with an evident Self Respect agenda by a prominent woman within the movement. The collection names all of the authors, with one exception by an anonymous contributor. Most of these articles

were published in the journal Puratchi (�ர翍சி, “Revolution”) between July and

December of 1930, along with two that were published in Kumaran (�மரꟍ, “Youth”) in 1934. The Self Respect Movement published many newsletters and journals, and women were encouraged to submit articles. Through their articles, we see women struggling to define themselves as individuals yearning for education, freedom of movement, and equality. These women are, however, clearly influenced by E.V.R.’s propaganda about the status of women in south India. This examination of Self Respect writings will include female contributors to Self Respect publications, and I will discuss ways that the rhetoric employed by both E.V.R. and the female authors of these essays acts to privilege an image of the educated, rational woman. This privileging ultimately refuses agency to a vast majority of the female south Indian population – the very population that the Self Respect Movement claims to be promoting.

Women’s Voices

One of the most prevalent concerns in these writings from the Self Respect Movement was to encourage and insist upon inter-caste equality. One of the most poignant essays on caste from the female perspective presented here is attributed to “Miss and Mrs. Kamalakshmi.” This essay points out that within all of the talk in the Self 160

Respect Movement of supporting non-Brahmins, the readers should recognize that Brahmin women, in fact, often live extremely oppressed lives. “Miss and Mrs. Kamalakshmi” tells her story here – one of child marriage in which the later ritushanti ritual, or consummation ritual, was accompanied by a demand from her husband’s family for 4000 rupees – an amount her family could not pay. Hence, Kamalakshmi had never met her husband, and the ritushanti never took place. She existed in limbo – married, but not. Once her parents died, her relatives treated her like a slave and there was no

discussion of attempting to raise the funds to enable her to take her place as a married woman. She had just received word that her husband was arranging a marriage to another woman in her place, and she was then consigned to a life worse than that of a widow in her eyes. She explains: “When a woman is widowed, people deem it her ‘fate’ once and for all. … Since my fate can actually be changed with a little money, people never let me forget that.”451 Kamalakshmi also states here that because of her peripheral existence, “My maami and others conveniently forgot that I was a woman.”452 Kamalakshmi’s role of reminding the readers of this Self Respect journal of the importance for the women’s movement to reach across caste lines problematizes simple categorizations of Brahmin vs. non-Brahmin in the Self Respect Movement. She closes her essay explaining, “I began to wonder which title I should use before my name – ‘Miss’ or ‘Mrs.’ … I have a right to the title of ‘Mrs. by virtue of being married. Since my ritushanti has not been performed, however, I would like to be referred to as ‘Miss’. That is the reason I have dared use both titles.”453 Another contribution to the problematization of the role of caste in oppression for the Self Respecters comes from

451 K. Srilata, The Other Half of the Coconut: Women Writing Self Respect History (New Delhi: Kali for Women, 2003), 30. 452 Ibid., 29. 453 Ibid., 31. 161

Alhaj Subako. Subako says that in the Self Respect Movement’s “stand on widowhood and Hindu society, it appears as though the stigma attached to widowhood and the difficulties posed by this stigma are confined to Hindu society alone; that Muslim society for instance, is happily exempt from all this. Let me proclaim openly, “Muslim women are slaves as well…”454 The presence of reminders like those from Miss and Mrs. Kamalakshmi and from Alhaj Subako signals the weight the discourse of the Self Respect Movement gave to the problems of primarily Hindu caste politics in south India.

Other writers take an accusatory stand on religious issues, saying “Rituals spring from the selfishness of the wily Brahmin. … In the name of ritual, the wily Brahmin commits nothing short of daylight robbery,”455 or asking “How can we justify ourselves when we classify one man as high and the other as low?”456 Brahmins are regularly presented in these writings as cheating superstitious people out of money and respect.457 This is, of course, a very fetishized picture of the Brahmin. Through the aggressive stance against Brahmins as opportunistic cheaters who get lots of money with very little effort, the non-Brahmin female posits herself in opposition as principled, hardworking, and unrightfully oppressed. E.V.R. gained notoriety through attacking Brahmin society in this very manner. Yet he wrote in 1929, “So far, we have been condemning the Brahmin, his principles and his practices. … The period of our abuse of Brahmins is long past. It was only our initial abuse of Brahmins that prepared you to listen to our words of advice… Hereafter, we have to speak only about your foolishness. From the way I have so far spoken about

454 Ibid., 75. 455 Ibid., p. 41. 456 Ibid., p. 84. 457 See especially the essays, “Rituals,” “The Skies Won’t Bring Forth Rain,” “The Sufferings of the Adi- dravidas,” “The Ritual of Garuda Sevai,” “A Bundle of Grass,” and “Will Educated Women take the Initiative?” in Ibid. 162

Brahmins, citing them as bad examples, you have realized your situation. The time for showing by means of your actions your realization of your situation has come now.”458 Here he appears very self-aware of the fetishization of the Brahmin mentioned above. He announces his intention to cease attacking Brahmins and instead focuses on actions of the non-Brahmin population. He says, “For one who believes in radical change, self-respect, equality and progress, the alternative (to the present situation) is not mere reform; but radical reconstructive work which would destroy the traditional structures.”459

In much of E.V.R.’s writing about the women’s movement, he focuses on concrete, and often quite radical, solutions to what he presents as the plight of Indian women. For instance, in response to the family planning movement, E.V.R. stated:

Others advocate contraception taking into consideration many problems like the health of women, the health and energy of the children, the poverty of the country and the maintenance of the family property. Many Westerners also support contraception for the same reasons. Our view is not based on these considerations. We recommend that women should stop delivering children altogether because conception stands in the way of women enjoying personal freedom. Further, begetting a number of children prevents men also from being free and independent. This truth will be clear if we listen to talk of men and women when their freedom is hampered.460 Here E.V.R. makes some radical claims – that his conclusions about the best solutions come from listening to the talk of men and women, and that children inhibit the freedom of both women and men. However, his suggestion that women stop delivering children altogether in the name of freedom is too extreme to be truly widely adopted. None of the essays actually written by women collected by Srilata addresses the question of childbirth

458 Periyar E.V. Ramasami, Periyar on Women’s Rights. K. Veeramani, Comp. R. Sundara Raju, Trans. (Madras: Emerald Publishers, 1992), 74. 459 Anandhi, “Women’s Question,” 25. 460 Ramasami, Collected Works, 45. 163

and women’s rights. It is difficult, therefore, to tell what women would have to say about E.V.R.’s suggestions. In another instance of extremism, E.V.R. addresses the status of widows and the question of sati:

The woman who is burnt alive suffers perhaps for an hour. But the woman who is spared from the funeral pyre is made to face throughout the rest of her life a kind of suffering equivalent to the torture of her body, inch by inch. Now what I say is this. Widows should be immediately married. For some years at least we must enforce the strict condition that there should not be any grown up woman in the unmarried state. Otherwise I feel that in the interests of human kindness the old sati practice must be revived, because when I think of the condition of widows, my heart burns.461 In both of these instances of extremism, E.V.R. relies on intersections of colliding value systems. For instance, those who tended to come to the defense of sati were more likely orthodox Brahmins who were loath to cast away tradition. Yet here E.V.R. adopts this stance not in defense of orthodoxy, but in fact in direct opposition to it. He takes this stand to highlight the extreme cruelty which traditional orthodoxy adopts in its treatment of widows. In arguing for sati, it appears that he intends to be creating a mutation in terms of colliding value systems; through doing so, he attempts to create space for realizations about the need for change. The women writing in the journals of the Self Respect Movement do not tend to adopt the truly extremist views of E.V.R. They focus on more accessible suggestions, such as encouraging widow remarriage. They also suggest encouraging greater equality in language. A woman named Trichi Neelavathi wrote, “I have demonstrated above that fate is applicable both to men as well as to women. If this is so, why are women singled

out of the label of ‘widow’? Fate does not differentiate between the sexes.”462

461 Ibid., 35. 462 Srilata, The Other Half of the Coconut, 66. 164

Many of the suggestions of women in the Self Respect Movement center around the education of women. There was a conservative movement active in south India in the early twentieth century that argued for a conservative approach to the idea of education.

An influential book, Pennin Perumai (1927) (ெப迍ண�ꟍ ெப�ைம, “Women’s

Pride”), argued that women’s positions in south India had fallen over time.463 The author, Thiru Vi. Kalyanasundaram,464 stated that Tamil women from centuries previous were valorous and worshipped for their chastity because they were traditionally educated. Yet,

as C.S. Lakshmi informs us, Thiru Vi. Ka. “was against western education for women for he felt that western education was not liberating. … As a nationalist, he was of the view that western education did not infuse nationalist feelings in women, nor did it make them courageous… or virtuous.”465 Finally Lakshmi notes that Thiru Vi. Ka. defined that which he considered educational as “what leads to good conduct.”466 Thiru Vi. Ka. goes on to say, “A girl must grow up like an incarnation of good conduct. A woman who is not this way is not a woman. … What is the purpose of a woman’s life? To become a mother. That is also the purpose of creation. Nature also has the same purpose. An education that goes against both and purports to help women’s life [sic], how can it be called education?”467 It is this sort of attempt at steering conceptions of south Indian femininity against which E.V.R. and the women within the Self Respect Movement were rebelling.

463 I learned about this book and its role in Tamil Nadu in Lakshmi, “Mother, Mother-Community and Mother-Politics in Tamil Nadu”. 464 Thiru Vi. Ka. was active in the Indian National Congress in Tamil Nadu, published a weekly periodical named Navasakthi, and wrote over fifty books in Tamil. See Obituary of Thiru Vi. Kalyanasundaram. https://web.archive.org/web/20061103152430/http://www.hinduonnet.com/2003/09/19/stories/2003091900 680900.htm 465 Lakshmi, “Mother, Mother-Community and Mother-Politics in Tamil Nadu,” WS-74. 466 Ibid. 467 Ibid. 165

Calls for education by women varied in tone and content. In one particularly insistent essay on participation of women in the Self Respect Movement, Trichi Neelavathi writes, “Nothing can be done since women have no education. Granted that they are not educated. But do women refuse to reform themselves even when you explain things to them? If we educate them gradually, will the flame of knowledge not burn in their hearts?”468 She goes on to suggest, “My dear brothers! … When you have to attend a conference, do not leave your wives behind as guardians of your homes. Take them

with you instead. If you are unable to attend a meeting due to some work, send them alone. Send them without fear. There is no need to rue the fact that women have been permitted the freedom to travel on their own.”469 These suggestions have a very positive tone. Yet other women, such as Mu. Maragaathavalliyar, write out of frustration, saying “Behold the ignorance of our women! At the break of dawn, they step out to smear the streets with cowdung. The belief is that Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth, is present in the cowdung! All women are thus humiliated in the name of a female goddess.”470 This insistence of the reason for the oppression of women as based in ignorance or superstition on the part of women essentializes south Indian women and does not leave room for them to express themselves in ways that may come naturally to them. Trichi Neelavathi writes that “if women are encouraged to get rid of their blind beliefs and superstitions, they will never oppose Self Respect principles. Therefore, to make women rational is currently the foremost duty of men.”471 Here rationality is equated with getting rid of blind beliefs and superstitions. It is interesting to see that

468 Srilata, The Other Half of the Coconut, 34. 469 Ibid. 470 Ibid., 47. 471 Srilata, The Other Half of the Coconut, 33. 166

despite the Self Respect Movement’s work towards women’s liberation, some writers continue to rely on language such as just quoted: “to make women rational is currently the foremost duty of men” (emphasis added.) Clearly the power dynamic operating in gender relationships in south India in the early twentieth century was deeply ingrained. Women within the Self Respect Movement picked up E.V.R.’s critique of gender relationships in south Indian society. At times, polemical and insistent articles by women were published in Self Respect journals. Neelavathi Ramasubramaniam, for instance, wrote, “If we consider our loss of freedom, our marginalization within human society, the way in which our legs have been broken, our eyes blindfolded and our feelings hurt, our hearts rage against male prejudice. Women have never been allowed to taste the bliss of freedom. It is not clear why… It is said that women should worship their menfolk, treat them like gods. But actually, it should be the other way around.”472 She goes on to argue that women contribute more than men in both the domestic and public spheres. There seems to often be an “us versus them” sort of attitude in these Self Respect writings. This othering serves the process of self-definition. The Self Respect Movement holds a distinctive place in the landscape of freedom movements on the Indian subcontinent in the early twentieth century because it looked at Brahmin domination as the primary enemy, rather than the ruling British. As a way of highlighting this difference, the Self Respect Movement often was rather complimentary of the British. This may reflect another use of a sort of inversion – complimenting that which others were fighting against in order to point out the “true, greater” evil. In the Self Respect writings I am examining, there is a clear privileging of white people. One woman, Janaki, writes about the superstitious beliefs common in south India regarding

472 Ibid., 78. 167

ways that women must act in order to placate the rain gods. She argues that these ideas are silly, and this is an instance of Brahmins’ ability to prescribe cultural mores on a gullible non-Brahmin population. Janaki argues that, “White women and men act contrary to all these decrees, yet the rains never fail them! In fact, I hear that in their countries not a day passes without bringing rain. The reason? These countries do not have Brahmins. …. No one attempts to placate the rain god. Therefore, the rains do not fail them!”473 Mu. Maragaathavalliyar argues that the women’s movement has not been successful in India, whereas in countries where the movement has been effective, “Western women have achieved more than their male counterparts in each and every sphere of life.”474 These sorts of claims are further signs of essentializing conceptions of femininity and nationality. Perhaps we need not lose sight of the fact that, in spite of essentializations of south Indian femininity, the Self Respect Movement created space for the empowerment of women and this was, at least at the individual level, effective. We see strength and determination in the writings of the women quoted above. Trichi Neelavathi writes, “It saddens my heart to learn that women are not enthusiastic about destroying blind belief, ignorance and slavery. How does your woman’s heart permit you to silently watch women being oppressed, enslaved and tortured? … Many educated women might be equally mired in ignorance. … Such women should firstly tackle their own ignorance and learn to take a rationalist approach to life. Young women should take greater initiative in social reform. It will prove difficult to fight the strength of youth. I am well aware that if you work for social reform, the world is not going to approve of you. But it is my fondest

473 Srilata, The Other Half of the Coconut, 54. 474 Ibid., 47. 168

hope that like young lionesses, you will rise to the occasion fearlessly!”475 There are certainly some “young lionesses” in the writings from Self Respect women I have reviewed. This empowerment situates the name “Self Respect Movement” within individuals. The women’s writings in these journals allow us to hear their voices even today.

Self Respect Marriages

Increasing women’s independence was one of E.V.R.’s grandest visions for the women’s movement. He viewed marriage as a particularly oppressive institution as it was currently practiced in south India. E.V.R. interpreted many of the symbols of the marriage ceremony in terms of a sort of ownership. For instance, he wrote, “it is normal practice for the groom to tie a rope (which they call the thali!) around the bride’s neck. The groom is then free to treat her as his slave and abuse her to his heart’s content. This is not very different from buying a buffalo, tying a rope around its neck, and pulling it along!”476 When discussing marriage, E.V.R. suggested either doing away with the institution of marriage altogether, or at a minimum, radically changing its practice. E.V.R. believed that instead, women and men should enter into marriages freely and respectfully, and should each be able to leave the marriage if they so desire. E.V.R. and the Self Respect Movement designed a new marriage ceremony that did not depend on the presence of priests, nor on “superstitious” rituals, in order to be authentic. Mytheli Sreenivas writes about the adoption of marriage as a site of contestation by the Dravidian movement. She describes these alternative ceremonies as an enactment of both power and propaganda. When a “Self Respect marriage” took place,

475 Srilata, The Other Half of the Coconut, 86. 476 Srilata, The Other Half of the Coconut, 188. 169

notices were usually placed in Self Respect newspapers and journals that provided a good deal of description of the ceremony, the couple (who often, itself, challenged cultural norms by being of different castes, religions, or perhaps through the marriage of a widow), or the guests and speakers. Sreenivas notes, “These politicized weddings were rooted in a gendered discourse that, at least rhetorically, rejected the patriarchal norms of Tamil families. For example, as Ramasami argued, ‘many people say that marriage is divine, [but] in actuality is about women’s abject subservience. If this is divine marriage,

we have no choice but to reject divine marriage, which is in fact slave marriage.’”477 E.V.R. instead aimed to liberate women by giving them the power of choice with marriage and divorce. By de-sacralizing marriage, E.V.R. positioned it as a purely contractual relationship. And yet, the Self Respect Movement continued to rely on the legitimizing power of the idea of “history”. A Self Respect wedding announcement in Kudi Arasu read “What a glorious reform marriage we have witnessed today! Research shows that this kind of wedding occurred in ancient times in our land.”478 E.V.R. attempted to remove religious symbolism (and the values it reflected) through instituting the rationalism that the Self Respect Movement held so dearly within a new marriage ceremony that he designed. In the context of marriage, he does lay down a few limits: “Brahmins and their mantras should be utterly avoided; meaningless rituals, piling mud pots, one on another, having the traditional lamp during day time, ritual smoke – all these should be avoided.”479 In an early article from Kudi Arasu spelled out types of marriages that could not be Self Respect marriages. These included marriages conducted by a priest who claims to be from a superior caste or community, ones

477 Mytheli Sreenivas, Wives, Widows, and Concubines: The Conjugal Family Ideal in Colonial India (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008), 85. 478 Hodges, “Revolutionary Family Life”, 266. 479 Ibid. 170

conducted in a language the couple cannot understand, one with unintelligible rituals, ones that rely on blind adherence to tradition, and ones in which the bride and groom are not both willing, or are too young.480 Self Respect journals also published descriptions of Self Respect weddings regularly. In fact, Sarah Hodges points out that “Between the years 1926 and 1949, about 800 weddings were reported in Kudi Arasu variously as Tamil weddings, Brahmin-eradicating marriages, reform marriages, or Self Respect weddings.”481 These announcement served to both celebrate and normatize this option.

E.V.R. said, “A self-respect wedding is based on rationalism. Rationalism is based on the individual’s courage.”482 In the marriage context, “rationalism” refers in part to the exclusion of meaningless rituals. E.V.R. explains that “the limits of rationalism are not well-defined; why, orthodoxy is also ill-defined… We can’t fix the limits of rationalism, just as we can’t fix the limits of science.”483 It is interesting that he links the unlimited nature of rationalism with those of both orthodoxy and science. Perhaps, through both, he is attempting to acquire authority from groups that might privilege one or the other.

REFLECTIONS

My intention in this chapter has been to examine various ways that the Self Respect Movement suggested or relied on practices in the reform areas of caste, language, and gender. In all of these areas, Self Respecters suggested perspectives, activities, or other markers that could be adopted to demonstrate the values and goals that the Self Respect Movement held. Themes that run through the calls to action that we have

480 These specifics from Kudi Arasu are quoted from Hodges, “Revolutionary Family Life”, 262. 481 Hodges, ““Revolutionary Family Life”, 263. 482 Ramasami, Collected Works, 24. 483 Ibid., 25. 171

seen in this chapter include a focus on the need for educational reform, a call to campaign for governmental support, individual lifestyle changes such as diet, dress, or language choice, changes in relating to others, and changes in ritual and celebrations. Behind all of these appeals is a call for shifts in values. The Self Respect Movement compelled people to rely on rationalism in approaching change. They asked people to think through what was right or wrong, and to consider ways to break free of assumptions or superstitions. They suggested controversial practices that went against social expectations, such as

widow remarriage or reconsiderations of commonly-accepted notions of “polluting” work. Part of any self-definition involves contextualizing the self, and that means perceiving what is similar or different between oneself and others. All of the practices the Self Respect Movement suggested were meant to break down barriers, whether cultural barriers or barriers of self-perception. Their goal was to do away with caste altogether. Language identities were driven by definitions of group identities as Dravidian identities grew and a defense of Tamil emerged. The Self Respect Movement hoped to drive change in even changing the ways concepts were discussed, or the ways words were used. In the area of gender identities, the Self Respect Movement worked to change cultural expectations and shift gender roles. Through campaigning for changes in practice, changes in ways individuals and groups situated themselves socially and even physically, the Self Respect Movement worked to create meaning and create community. They suggested ways of living according to their values visibly, verbally, individually, or in relationships. I argue that this role of the Self Respect Movement can be viewed through the analytical category of

172

the practice of non-religion, and that for those who participated, it could be a tangible, meaning-making set of identifications and practices.

173

Chapter 5: “Can one Legitimately Speak of Religions of the Oppressed?” The role of non-religion in the reform of the Self Respect Movement

Can one legitimately speak of religion(s) of the oppressed? … Consciousness of oppression, first of all, indicates an epistemological shift. All things social appear to the oppressed under a new light: they themselves become a homogenous collectivity, unjustly subordinated and subjugated; the various social phenomena hitherto accepted as neutral, given, or having thing-like quality, now appear as emanations of exploitative social relations; the society itself is viewed as constitutive of two groups, the oppressor and the oppressed, locked in conflict.484 – G. Aloysius

Through this dissertation, I have discussed the historical context in which the Self Respect Movement arose, the ways religion has been studied, the rise of rationalism, identity formation through religion, caste, language, and gender in south India, and I have pulled together how individuals wrote about religion or what I call non-religion in south India in the early twentieth century. To conclude, I will explore the question: how did rationalism and non-religion contribute to identity formation in south India during this period? I suggest that through the creation of an alternative worldview that relied on rationalism and non-religion, the Self Respect Movement actively appropriated and constructed alternatives to religious symbols and perspectives. This allowed for the exposition of specific values and the establishment of new normative practices. This chapter will follow this path: first, I will revisit some of the subjects to which I have drawn attention through this dissertation. These will include secularism and rationalism, along with the varieties of voices from which we have heard. After revisiting these, I will pull together themes that are found in the traditionally-studied markers of identity that I reviewed in Chapters Three and Four: religion, caste, language, and gender. I will turn my attention to themes that emerge from the writings of individuals within the

484 G. Aloysius, Religion as Emancipatory Identity, 7. 174

Self Respect Movement, for they advocate confrontation, rejection of superstition, irreverence, individualism, and the inversion of values. These themes that emerge from Self Respect Movement writings work to differentiate Self Respecters from the social milieu in which they lived. I suggest that these values are some that are highlighted by considering the Self Respect Movement specifically through the lens of non-religion. This perspective allows us to see more clearly the alternative web of meaning and community that the Self Respect Movement worked to establish in early twentieth century south India. I revisit Lois Lee’s description of the role of non-religion in society and discuss the ways that the Self Respect Movement represents such functions in the particular ways that it fostered identity formation.

RETROSPECTIVES

Revisiting Secularism

I want to begin by revisiting the concept of the secular in India because it has come to have a particular history and meaning through its adoption by the Indian government beginning with its independence from the British Empire in 1947. My basis for conceptualizing the secular is Lois Lee’s definition described in Chapter One: any approach in which religion is a subordinate authority or concern. In the early twentieth- century Indian context, many of the first public attempts by groups to find pathways to help them navigate between competing religious values and ideals relied on discussions or adoption of the values of secularism. Chapter Two presented two individuals who typified two perspectives within this public discussion at the time: Mohandas K. Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. Gandhi exemplified “positive secularism”: the perspective that all religions contain some potential truth, which calls for governmental neutrality in the

175

attempt to allow citizens the freedom to participate in and support any religion they may desire. Jawaharlal Nehru conversely exemplified “negative secularism”: the assumption that all religions are false, and this calls for governmental neutrality in the attempt to allow citizens the freedom to participate and support any religion they may desire. Both of these approaches result in governmental neutrality. The concept of governmental neutrality on religious matters fits with Lois Lee’s definition of secularism; for India’s government, the goal has been for religion to remain

a subordinate concern. India’s governmental adoption of this position of secularity contributes to the dichotomy of the public (secular) and private (potentially religious) realms. Admittedly, the trend of separating the question of belief or non-belief into either a personal or political realm itself may be a somewhat problematic proposition.485 However, setting deep philosophical questioning aside, there is a generally accepted distinction between religious and non-religious contexts. The Indian government adopted a secular perspective and approach specifically to guide their handling of questions relating to religion and religion-related concerns. A typical portrayal of the position of India’s government reads: “it is claimed that Indian secularism stands for the ‘equal distance’ of the state from the groups, but above all for respect toward religious minorities. Moreover, the state is supposed to ensure the balance between groups in order to avoid social unrest and maintain public order. … The idea of accommodating religious diversity as key to Indian secularity holds for both critics and advocates.”486 “Secularism” as a value of India’s government has guided much of the discussion

485 For example, Charles Taylor wrote extensively exploring the process by which the religious and non- religious came to be separated in peoples’ minds. Taylor, A Secular Age. Richard King questions whether “the religious” and “the political” are even separate realms in reality. King, Orientalism and Religion, 14. 486 Monika Wohlrab-Sahr and Marian Burchardt, “Multiple Secularities: Toward a Cultural Sociology of Secular Modernities” Comparative Sociology 11 (2012) 898. 176

surrounding the interaction of religion with the non-religious in India, although that discussion has not separated, firmly and consistently, questions of belief from questions of whether religious considerations are given priority. Acceptance of that conceptual boundary allows alternative perspectives to be considered. For instance, in the descriptions above of Gandhi’s and Nehru’s approaches, each approach led to governmental neutrality. In other words, the result of their differing approaches was an agreement that the government should not endorse religious concerns. The initial

descriptions of their approaches were, however, the descriptions of their beliefs. For Gandhi, all religions contain some potential truth, and for Nehru, there was an assertion that all religions are false. These positions are those that would fall under a study of non- religion. Nehru’s position that all religions are false is a more familiar proposition in the study of non-religion. This could be named a “post-religion” perspective, one that is shaped by religion but no longer actively influenced by it. Nehru was very educated about religion. He did not fit the category of being unaware nor of being overly critical. Instead, he was aware, but intentionally indifferent. Gandhi, on the other hand, demonstrated a very positive approach to religions through a pluralist perspective that all religions contain some potential truth. Lois Lee argues that scholarship needs to engage nuances of belief. As she explains, “by focusing on difference rather than rejection, non- religion can be used to describe additional experiences in which individuals and institutions feel different from but positively disposed towards the religion of others.”487 Non-religion in terms of its positivist approaches is a field with many opportunities for exploration, but the unsystematic approach taken to studying India’s secularism does not contribute clarity to this field.

487 Lee, Recognizing the Non-Religious, 33. 177

Revisiting the Emergence of the Concept of Rationalism

Chapter Two of this work describes the entry of the concept of “rationalism” into public discussions and consciousness in England in the mid-nineteenth century. The term rationalism was chosen by those who became participants of the Rationalist Press Association to describe an approach to life that was non-dogmatic and characterized by reliance on morality, reason, and science as guiding principles. One aspect of the Rationalist Press Association’s non-dogmatism included an openness to religions or religious experiences, provided they made space for the above-mentioned guiding

principles. In this context, the approach of the Rationalist Press Association constitutes “irreligion.” Irreligion is defined by Lois Lee in a couple of instances. In the first, she writes, “irreligion… is primarily an intellectual matter, involving the rejection of religious ideas on theoretical or moral grounds. Thus the rejection of theism plays a key role in these

accounts and ‘atheism’ is a central motif.”488 Elsewhere, she writes, “irreligion is a disposition towards religion involving hostility or indifference (or disengagement, in alternative phrasings).”489 There are three primary components to this characterization of irreligion: 1) intellectualism, 2) openness to indifference or hostility, and 3) theoretical or moral grounding. Clerical attacks labeling agnosticism “ignorant” led the Rationalist Press Association to distance themselves from that particular term. The concern with disassociating from the label “ignorant” helps explain part of why rationalism relied on an intellectual approach. “Irreligion” as a term to conceptualize the rationalist approach in England also captures the Rationalist Press Association members’ desire not to get

488 Ibid., 10. 489 Lee, Recognizing the Non-Religious, 31. 178

sidetracked into intolerance based on religious belief or lack thereof, as seen in their desire to distance themselves from the dogmatism of Charles Bradlaugh, for instance. Rationalism in the Indian context emerged gradually into the Indian public consciousness. The term rationalism, having crossed cultures, developed its subtleties of use once adopted in new cultural contexts. The context considered here is how the Self Respect Movement embraced the term. A perspective on the Self Respect Movement as traditionally found in academic literature is described by Nambi Arooran. He suggests that there was an Indian renaissance that comprised three phenomena: “revolt against tradition and custom, an intellectual awakening, and a spiritual awakening.”490 He goes on to explain:

Corresponding to these three manifestations there developed three broad patterns of thought in India. One, imbued with Western rationalism, was iconoclastic. Those belonging to this school criticized authority and tradition, denounced superstitious practices and caste restrictions and urged their general abandonment. The second, stimulated by Western knowledge, sought to reform Hinduism from within. The liberals of this school of thought looked to Europe as an intellectual store-house… The third consisted of the great body of conservative opinion, deeply embedded in sentiment and custom, which was opposed to the infusion of Western ideas or habits.491 Nambi Arooran’s description of the first of these categories portrays this iconoclastic pattern of thought as being characterized entirely negatively, through criticism and denouncement. This perspective on ways in which “Western rationalism” was adopted in India does not conceptualize it as a creative or positive force. This dissertation argues that such a commonly-found historical perspective misses much of what is significant about reform movements in India such as the Self Respect Movement.

490 Nambi Arooran, Tamil Renaissance and Dravidian Nationalism, 1. 491 Ibid., 1-2. 179

Revisiting Thass, Ambedkar, and E.V.R.

This study examines how members of the Self Respect Movement utilized the concept of rationalism to express their relationships to religion and other identity markers. Chapter Three considered relationships to religion, in part, through a comparison between E.V.R.’s approach and that of two other reformers: Iyothee Thass and B. R. Ambedkar. Thass’s and Ambedkar’s approaches to religion, as evidenced in their writings and discussed in Chapter Three, do not fall into the analytical category of non-religion because each man found refuge in alternative religions from those into which they were born. They are useful to consider, though, in that they provide foils to E.V.R.’s turn to non-religion. Thass worked for relief for low-caste communities through religious and political pathways in many different ways during his lifetime. He converted to Buddhism because he perceived it to match many of his values. The values in which he found meaning in Buddhism included: a return to an authentic past, a betterment of society, a reliance on reason, and an encouragement of brotherhood. His choice of religion was, therefore, based on relational and functional reasons. In other words, Thass was concerned with not just the internal religious experiences he had, but also with how his choice of religion encouraged him to live in the world and interact with society. B. R. Ambedkar also converted to Buddhism, but that was only near the end of his life. He spent much of his life wrestling with his opinions about religion, especially Hinduism. Ambedkar held one ultimate goal: caste reform. He alternated between two different routes to work toward that goal: individual religious choice and political legislative action. Ambedkar demonstrated this concern when speaking of religious

180

choice, saying “Choose any religion which gives you equality of status and treatment.”492 Ambedkar bemoaned the lack of cohesion that the caste system embodied, and complained that Hinduism encouraged divisiveness. He viewed Hinduism as a series of sacrificial, social, political, and sanitary rules and regulations, and argued that it was not a religion in the true sense of the word. For Ambedkar, a true religion was spiritual, universally accessible, and brought people together. He considered these values to be supported by Buddhism.

One other similarity between Thass and Ambedkar is the decision to which each came to convert to another religion outside of the one into which he was born. This is, of course, something that sets each of them apart from E.V.R., who rejected religion for himself altogether. Gauri Viswanathan finds individuals’ conversions to be evidence of crucial, but largely covert, historical connections.493 Her argument that individual conversions are indexes of cultural change is useful here. Considering Thass’ and Ambedkar’s conversions through Viswanathan’s suggested perspective, their conversions are conceivable as forms of resistance. As Viswanathan notes, conversions are often “forms of activity - often oppositional - that alternatively are triggered by and shape the tendencies accruing around sociopolitical developments.”494 Ambedkar overtly discussed his conversions in the context of resisting negative social implications that he found in Hinduism, and his conversion included a desire to protest the social conditions in which he lived. Thass felt drawn to the idea of authenticity and a link to a forgotten history in which his caste had been Buddhists in prior centuries.495 Thass’ connection to the idea of

492 Roy, The Doctor and the Saint, 36. 493 Gauri Viswanathan, Outside the Fold: Conversion, Modernity, and Belief (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 184. 494 Ibid. 495 Sumathi Ramaswamy discusses the potentially oppositional and subversive nature of what she calls “labors of loss.” She explains, “I am interested in how apprehensions of loss mobilize the imagination, 181

authentic history could have been influenced by his unhappiness with the political and social realities he experienced in late-nineteenth century India, as also seen in his campaigns for change. Another cause for Thass’ connection to the idea of a return to a lost history could be the legitimizing role that history itself played in the ideological colonization that mirrored the political colonization manifest on the subcontinent.496 For both Ambedkar and Thass, Buddhism signified, at least in part, a personal form of protest. G. Aloysius explains this approach, writing, “Tamil Buddhism was not a mere anti-religious movement; it was a genuine religious movement of the subaltern turning the oppressed. While critiquing ruthlessly the dominant definition of the Transcendent, the movement itself was positing a new form of humane and historical rooted notion of the supernatural as an alternative.”497 This was written about Thass’ Tamil Buddhism specifically, but I connect it to Ambedkar’s Buddhism additionally. Both of these individuals found truth for themselves in this alternate religion, and part of that truth was the cultural critique that it represented. E.V.R. was very critical of Hinduism in practice. He believed that Hinduism was man-made and was created to control society and ensure the prominence of Brahmins. E.V.R. shared an overarching drive for equality with Ambedkar and Thass, although E.V.R. widened the perspectives that Thass and Ambedkar held. E.V.R. worked not only for caste reform, but also for the rights of other oppressed groups, especially women. E.V.R.’s critiques of religion included the presence of religious paradoxes (non-reason), a

provoke political action, and interpolate whole fields of knowledge.” in Sumathi Ramaswamy, Lost Land of Lemuria: Fabulous Geographies, Catastrophic Histories (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), 8. 496 One of many discussions of this phenomena is Hobsbawm and Ranger’s Invention of Tradition. Here, Hobsbawm and Ranger investigate practices that encourage certain values through repetition and often establishing continuity with a specific idealized past. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). 497 Aloysius, Religion as Emancipatory Identity, 145. 182

lack of the sense of right and wrong, lack of access, and a recognition that many requirements in Hinduism (such as material requirements during rituals) were not accessible for much of the population. Increasingly, as he aged, E.V.R. embraced being known as an atheist. In terms of Lois Lee’s terminology, “atheism” is an approach that does not accept theism or belief in God(s). E.V.R. does fit that description, although in Lee’s framework, an atheistic perspective is also somewhat passive. E.V.R. certainly was not passive! Lee’s category

that most closely aligns with E.V.R.’s approach would be “anti-religious”. The category of anti-religion is one that takes an oppositional stance toward religion, be it through disaffection or outright hostility. E.V.R. did oppose religion, although he primarily opposed it for himself. He opposed religion’s social effects very strongly. And he was wide ranging in how he applied his values. He wrote, for instance, “How many times do we reform poojas (prayers) and place offerings to gods a day? … If we consider what pains are taken for these expenses, none could assert that gods have done good to our people in any manner. If the huge amount spent this way is diverted to other fields, we can run the government without taxes. If we create new industries and educational institutions we can solve the problems of illiteracy and unemployment.”498 As noted earlier, his critiques were very functional and most commonly focused on how irrational and socially negative Hinduism was.

IDENTITY FORMATION IN RELIGION, CASTE, LANGUAGE, AND GENDER

There are many themes that emerge from the areas of identity formation within religion, caste, language, and gender. These include: a focus on reason, interest in the good for the many, a focus on education to allay “superstition”, global awareness, a focus

498 Ramasami, Collected Works, 75. 183

on change and glorification of the past, idealizations of insider/outsider, reliance on print culture, individual lifestyle adaptations such as diet, dress, or language choice, shifts in relating to others, and changes in ritual and celebrations. We saw these emerge through Chapters Three and Four. One theme I would like to say more about here is the dichotomy of insider and outsider, for it is often so fluid in how it is perceived or enacted. Within the category of linguistic identification, for instance, the issue would seem to be clear between those who speak Dravidian languages and those who speak Indo-Aryan

languages. However, we see that when references are made to Dravidian peoples, often the Brahmins who speak Dravidian languages are implicitly not included. Here the Tamilians viewed Brahmins as “outsiders”, though according to languages spoken they would certainly be “insiders.” Further, when considering the advent of the press and the importance of written language to spreading the Dravidian movement’s messages, it would seem that the illiterate are left outside of the picture. Yet, according to the populist discourse which the Dravidian parties used, they were urging all non-Brahmins to be inside the movement. The illiterate non-Brahmins were included in the spread of anti- Brahmin rhetoric through the utilization of colloquial Tamil in speeches to spread political messages. Within the frame of the development of language and ideology, we see smaller sub-sections of the population which are included or left out of various modes of transmitting that message. Where the concept of nation is concerned, we have already seen some revolutions in the way “nation” is perceived in peoples’ writings. On one hand, the nation of India is a factual and experiential reality to Tamilians. Yet, on the other hand, they created the concept of a micro-nation within south India itself. Many in the Dravidian movement actively defined the Indian nation as outside of their realm of culture. Lloyd Rudolph

184

explains how the Dravidian movement visibly demonstrated this rejection as they “carried on campaigns to erase Hindi lettering from railroad signs, to burn effigies of Rama and smash ‘idols’ of Hindu deities, to burn the Indian flag, to burn or erase the term Brahman displayed at ‘hotels’ (cafes or restaurants), to burn the Indian constitution and destroy pictures or statues of Gandhi, and to burn maps of India.”499 From yet a different perspective, there were individuals within south India who were not moved by the Dravidian movement and who were sympathetic to the “outsider” Indian nation, thereby taking on “outsider” status themselves. When viewing the phenomena of the new elite within non-Brahmin culture in south India, we see complications in setting boundaries around this, too. Those individuals who had newly-acquired positions of power often did not define themselves as being a part of the elite. They began to be viewed as “outsiders” to a majority of the population (who did not have the perceived power of the new elite) on account of their new-found wealth, yet they still considered themselves to be insiders. V. Geetha describes non-Brahmin consciousness as split,500 and that the elites espousing a populist message upheld firm categories of who was “outside.” The new political parties spoke of radical dissent on one hand, yet often took a far more conciliatory tone when dealing with outsiders like the Indian government. Once the waves of criticism and self-reflection of Tamil culture began, it continued in every direction. Eugene Irschick notes that “During the 1920’s and even more in the following decade, Brahmans in the T.N.C.C. (Congress) were attacked both from without and from within.”501 During the process of identity

499 Rudolph Lloyd, “Urban Life and Populist Radicalism: Dravidian Politics in Madras.” in The Journal of Asian Studies 20, no. 3 (1961), 289. 500 Geetha and Rajadurai, Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium, 219. 501 Irschick, Politics and Social Conflict in South India, 356. 185

formation, each person, party, and people worked within variable ideologies as they searched for meaning. Frequently, the confluence of religion and politics was presented as fundamentally central to the power struggles in India at the time. Author Miss Gnanam wrote, “The Self Respect Movement raises a standard of revolt against such socio- political parties whose cry of nationalism is but an election stunt. Nationalism with religion and social inequalities is but another name for gilded slavery, while

communalism eschewed of its religion and its concomitant social superstitions is liberty.”502 It is worth noting that writers called for many different specific types of social change. For instance, the editors wrote, “The abolition of untouchability and emancipation of women will be impossible until we rid people’s minds of the notion that there are special virtues attached to birth. Caste is a graded system of merits deriving sanction from a false doctrine of heredity.”503 Revolt proved itself as a platform for the discussion of progressive change on many different fronts. Language grew increasingly creative as it was utilized to portray conviction of devotion to Dravidian identity. Identity itself was manipulated as Tamilians’ self- awareness developed. In fact, Sumathi Ramaswamy “would insist that [the term ‘Tamilian’] assumes significance in political and social discourses only with the consolidation of the people-centered and patrimonial ideologies of language ushered in by modernity… at stake is the production and definition of the modern Tamil subject.”504 We can see how the pieces of Tamil culture which were brought out and embellished by

502 Miss Gnanam, “The Political Philosophy of the Self-Respect Movement,” Revolt (April 17, 1929), 187. 503 “The Work Ahead,” Revolt (Feb. 13, 1929), 113. 504 Ramaswamy, Passions of the Tongue, 250. 186

the Dravidian parties were those which had an advantage in the creation of Tamil identities. We see here a period when the immaterial labor of communication becomes a productive force. The members of the Dravidian movement created new knowledge and mythos. Ramaswamy again explains one aspect of how language began assuming new roles: “This people-centered ideology of modernity inaugurates a patrimonial imagination in which language is constituted as a tangible, material possession that is transmitted from one generation of its speakers to another who relate to it as a property-owning ‘collective individual.’ Since it is their patrimony, its speakers are enjoined to ensure the well-being of their language, for in this lay the future of the community whose very existence is now predicated on its possession.”505 The influence of this new language- consciousness has continued to affect Tamil culture since the early twentieth century.

REFLECTIONS ON SELF RESPECTERS’ VALUES

Defining what values were promoted or demonstrated by the Self Respect Movement provides a doorway to consider the role of non-religion in India. Chapters Three and Four explore writings from many contributors to Revolt and Puratchi in 1928- 34. Themes that emerged from their articles include a focus on reason and rationalism, a utilitarian awareness of whether religion serves the majority of the population, the importance of education and a rejection of ignorance, a turning to history for verification or validation, a global awareness, and a link between change and progress. Some of the perspectives that are represented in their writings are agnosticism, anti-religion, irreligion, secularity, and theism.

505 Ibid., 11. 187

The Self Respect Movement worked to promote rationalism, but within that framework, its members held many other values that determined their paths to work for reform. These other values include: confrontation, rejection of superstition, irreverence, individuality, and the inversion of traditional values. The Self Respect Movement and E.V.R. held this alternate set of values, and this contributes to setting them apart. From the writings I have reviewed from people within the Self Respect Movement, we hear voices that were not afraid of confronting perspectives that they viewed as outdated or

misinformed. These writers were united in their attempts to reject superstition wherever they perceived it. They were often irreverent, and I use this word in a wide sense. This irreverence was concerning all sorts of cultural values, not just in the area of religion (although that is certainly included). Individuality was prized; thinking independently – even if that meant expressing views that would not be commonly held within the Self Respect Movement – was seen in the variety of articles that were published. Whether independence of thought led to tolerance of various perspectives on religion in Revolt, or whether it is seen in the vacillations the Self Respect Movement exhibited in its relationships with other groups,506 the value of independence seems to have connected its members. The inversion of traditional values was common in Self Respect writings. Lloyd Rudolph notes that one of the Dravidian movement’s important cultural activities was re- imagining popular mythological stories.507 E.V.R., particularly, focused on reinterpreting the epics. The Self-Respect Movement’s interpretation of the Ramayana, for instance, placed Rama as the representation of northern, Brahminic culture and hence the natural

506 For instance, the Self Respect Movement vociferously and publicly disagreed with Tamil Saivite groups in the mid- to late- 1920s, yet the groups joined forces in 1937-1939 as they rallied against the imposition of Hindi as the official language. See Venkatachalapathy, “Dravidian Movement and Saivites,” 765. 507 Rudolph, “Urban Life and Populist Radicalism: Dravidian Politics in Madras,” 288. 188

enemy of Ravana, the hero in this version, who represented south India. E.V.R. neither accepted the mythos that underlaid Hinduism, nor the glorification of the past that so many other groups relied upon. M.S.S. Pandian notes, “[E.V.R.] condemned every move to resolve the current contradictions of the Tamil society by nostalgically retreating to a glorified past. … His overarching denouncement of the Tamil past spared neither the classical Tamil literature such as Thirukural and Silapathikaram nor the ancient Tamil rulers of the Cheras, the Cholas, and the Pandyan dynasties. Equally important is his view

that the teleos of history and rationality was interminable, continuously invalidating the past, and disclosing newer avenues of freedom all through.”508 These alternate values led to the creation of several normative practices by the Self Respect Movement. The most obvious of these is the Self Respect marriage ceremony which E.V.R. helped conceive that was discussed in Chapter Four.509 Other activities encouraged or established by the Self Respect Movement include subscribing to Self Respect journals – not to mention authoring of articles therein –, myriad campaigns to encourage change such as dropping caste surnames, and condemning the wearing of religious marks on the forehead.510 As Hodges notes: “The simultaneous deployment of

distinctive dress and mobilization of large numbers for events made a strong impact, both on the performers and on the general public which was their audience.”511 These were all active ways that individuals could incorporate definitions of themselves as rationalists

508 M.S.S. Pandian, "Notes on the Transformation of 'Dravidian' Ideology: Tamilnadu, C. 1900- 1940." Social Scientist 22, no. 5/6 (1994) 97-8. 509 These were not, however, the only alternate marriage ceremonies in vogue at the time. G. Aloysius writes of a Buddhist marriage ceremony that was enacted as a form of resistance, noting, “It is difficult to determine the extent of its popularity. But we do have sufficient evidence to show that such marriages took place in the different branches of Sakya/South Indian Buddhist Association since the time of Pandit Iyothee Thass, the knowledge of it along with its rationale spread far and wide through the columns of Tamilan…” Aloysius, Religion as Emancipatory Identity, 115. 510 These are discussed in Venkatachalapathy, “Dravidian Movement and Saivites,” 763. 511 Hodges, “Revolutionary Family Life”, 260. 189

into their day-to-day lives. One interesting point about these activities is that many were actions that one could take in one’s private life. If we adopt Chatterjee’s dichotomy introduced in the introduction – that of inner/private/traditional/feminine versus outer/public/modern/masculine – then creating new normative practices in the realm of the private and traditional lives of people could be a very productive way to create change. This represents a different approach from the public protests that the Self Respect Movement also held. Alternate approaches were also regularly adopted to common,

public celebrations. For instance, here is a description of one such celebration: “Instead of Deepavali, many Self Respect families celebrated E.V.R.’s birthday. One woman described the festivities: ‘We would make pongal and payasam [sweet dishes], we would garland the statue of Periyar and we would talk about all Ayya [Periyar] has told and how we must carry that message [speak that way] as well.’”512 These shifts in enactment were about creating change internally as well as externally. There are many ways to see the importance of the Self Respect Movement. These include, but certainly are not limited to: inverting traditional power structures (both in a south Indian and pan-Indian context), empowering (though simultaneously essentializing) south Indian femininity, and also empowering the individuals involved. All of these perspectives, and more, are important, and they all tell different stories.513 There is still a great deal of work that remains to be done on the Self Respect Movement. Topics which would further this study include: the relationship between caste and gender oppression and revolution in the Dravidian movement; a much more detailed exploration of the relationship between the Self Respect Movement and the pan-Indian nationalist

512 Hodges, “Revolutionary Family Life”, 259. 513 This is reminiscent of Romila Thapar’s insistence on awareness of the ways perceptions and stories of ‘history’ change in regards to all sorts of cultural pressures. See Romila Thapar, “Interpretations of Ancient Indian History,” History and Theory 7, No. 3. (1968), 318. 190

movement; a much more complete survey of the rhetoric employed by the contributors of the Self Respect journals, especially including comparisons of writings by men and women within the movement; an analysis of the readership of the journals; and analysis of what sort of political spaces this opened up or upon which effected long-term changes. The Self Respect Movement was unique in its particular approach to reform. In some contexts, the Self Respect Movement espoused values that could be described as European-origin, modernist, and/or post-Enlightenment. It was deeply committed to

radical equality. It was fiercely progressive in terms of women’s reproductive rights. And it was grounded in the specific cultural milieu of caste and religion in the Indian context. It was Dravidian at heart, and fought consistently for its own, tremendously local, sense

of self and cultural pride.

REVISITING THE CONCEPTUAL CATEGORY OF NON-RELIGION

Chapter One introduced Lois Lee in a discussion of her influence on the approach adopted in this study. Her book contributed two primary new categories of input to the study of religion and its alternatives: 1) a consideration of terms and exploration of nuances of terminology, and 2) the suggestion – with convincing evidence – that there is a field of un-explored phenomena of substantive cultural effects of non-religion. Lee calls these “existential cultures”, explaining, “religious, spiritual, and nonreligious cultures can be understood as forms of existential culture, all providing viable responses—salient ideas, satisfying socio-cultural experiences—to what have been termed ‘ultimate questions’.”514 This study explores the idea of non-religion contributing to positive, substantive cultural effects. Lee explains these phenomena as including “quiet performances of the

514 Lee, Recognizing the Non-Religious, 186. 191

self as non-religious that take place in interaction… but also independently.”515 Examples of what can be affected positively and substantively are: people’s self-identification, social identifications, and/or active creations of meaning on specifically non-religious bases. Lee again writes, “It is often through banal forms and hidden solidarities that cultures are at their most influential in human life, woven into the social as taken-for- granted norms.”516 Rather than overlooking expressions or manifestations of non- religion, she urges that they be recognized. Johannes Quack also writes about the

category of non-religion. He explains, “Nonreligious people and phenomena are not only related to religion with respect to ontological questions concerning the existence of God, gods, or other ‘supernatural’ entities but also on the epistemological, moral, aesthetic, linguistic, or juridical level.”517 These are helpful suggestions of where to look for the solidarities to which Lee points. Ultimately, Lee urges attention to non-religion as a “cultural as well as intellectual movement and therefore has… local inflections that effect its passage through societies.”518 Considering non-religion as a force in peoples’ lives that creates space for identity-formation and social relationships is compelling, especially as opposed to non-religion signifying merely the absence or negation of religious identification.

THE ROLE OF THE SELF RESPECT MOVEMENT THROUGH THE LENS OF NON-RELIGION

The ability to interpret non-religious activism as a cultural as well as intellectual movement, as Lee urges, is possible through examining people’s enacted self- or social- conceptions. In Chapter One, I provided two definitions of “non-religion” from Lee: “a

515 Ibid., 187. 516 Ibid. 517 Quack, “Outline of a Relational Approach to ‘Nonreligion’,” 440. 518 Lee, Recognizing the Non-Religious, 187. 192

set of social and cultural forms and experiences that are alternative to religion and framed as such,”519 or, in another description, “Non-religion is therefore any phenomenon— position, perspective, or practice—that is primarily understood in relation to religion but which is not itself considered to be religious.”520 For the members of the Self Respect Movement, therefore, it is the alternate ceremonial options, the individual lifestyle changes, the shifts in language or in values, that are alternative to religion and are framed as such. Members of the Self Respect Movement held differing specific approaches to

religion. But, whether these approaches manifested as positions, perspectives, or practices, they were regularly employed in order to create meaning and create community. The Self Respect Movement is only one example of non-religion in India. Evidence that the Self Respect Movement played a meaningful role in the cultural life of south India can be seen in the social and political movements that have continued through the decades since the height of the Self Respect Movement’s influence.521 To consider the non-religious aspects of the Self Respect Movement as merely reactionary, inflammatory, or as derivative of western Enlightenment values is reductive and misses the compelling formative nature that it played for its members. In 1947, E.V.R. wrote, “People cannot live without a religion. That is, the kind of religion I am talking about is not the one that establishes a relationship between god and men or awards fate, forgiveness or reward in the upper world of heaven. It is of the other kind, of humble respect, love and devotion, and peaceful, fraternal, united, disciplined and mutually helpful life between man and man. It is for your understanding, that I am

519 Lee, Recognizing the Non-Religious, 13. 520 Ibid., 32. 521 For example, see Pandian, Brahmin and Non Brahmin; Bate, Tamil Oratory; and Sara Dickey, Cinema and the Urban Poor in South India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). 193

using the term religion with which you are accustomed. My own preference is to call this a social principle.”522 E.V.R. recognized the need for shared values on which connections can be built both between individuals and as wider social foundational principles. This study suggests that the Self Respect Movement provided not just a platform for social reform, but also a social space in which its members could develop, explore, and discuss shared values. This is just one example of creation of meaning and community through a worldview specifically alternative to religion. India has a rich history of non-religious cultures, and these deserve further consideration by scholars aware of the fields of tangible social practices and effects that non-religion can demonstrate.

522 G. Aloysius, Periyar on Islam (New Delhi: Critical Quest, 2004), 13. 194

Bibliography

Acharya, Madhava. Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha, translated by E. B. Cowell and A. E. Gough. London: Trubner & Co., Ludgate Hill, 1882. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34125/34125-h/34125-h.htm

Aloysius, G. Dalit-Subaltern Self-Identifications: Iyothee Thassar and Tamizhan. New Delhi: Critical Quest, 2010.

---- . Periyar on Islam. New Delhi: Critical Quest, 2004.

---- . Religion as Emancipatory Identity: a Buddhist movement among the Tamils under colonialism. New Delhi: Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society: New Age International, 1998.

Ambedkar, B.R. “Report containing Views and Recommendations regarding changes in the Constitution of the Bombay Presidency, Sec. III, Chap. 3,” in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, ed. Vasant Moon and Hari Narke. New Delhi: Dr. Ambedkar Foundation, 2014.

---- . Annihilation of Caste: The Annotated Critical Edition. London: Verso, 2014.

Anandhi, S. “Women’s Question in the Dravidian Movement c. 1925-1948,” Social Scientist. Vol. 19, Nos. 5-6, May-Ju 1991.

Anderson, Benedict R. O'G. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Rev. and extended ed. New York: Verso, 1991.

Appadurai, Arjun. Worship and Conflict Under Colonial Rule: A South Indian Case. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

---- . “Number in the Colonial Imagination.” In Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament: Perspectives on South Asia, edited by Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer, 314-339. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.

Arooran, K. Nambi. Tamil Renaissance and Dravidian Nationalism: 1905-1944. Madurai: Koodal Publishers, 1980.

Asad, Talal. Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

195

---- . Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2003.

Asher, Catherine B. and Cynthia Talbot. India Before Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Ayyathurai, Gajendran. “Foundations of Anti-caste Consciousness: Pandit Iyothee Thass, Tamil Buddhism, and the Marginalized in South India.” PhD diss., Columbia University, 2011.

Baker, Christopher John. The Politics of South India: 1920-1937. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Barnett, Marguerite Ross. The Politics of Cultural Nationalism in South India. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976.

Barua, Ankur. “Revisiting the Gandhi-Ambedkar Debates over ‘Caste’: The Multiple Resonances of Varna.” in Journal of Human Values. Vol. 25, No. 1, 2019.

Bate, Bernard. Tamil Oratory and the Dravidian Aesthetic: Democratic Practice in South India. 2009. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/10.7312/bate14756

Baxter, Matthew H. “Bhutams of Marx and the Movement of Self-Respecters.” In History of Political Thought. Vol. XXXVII. No. 2. Summer 2016.

---- . “Two Concepts of Conversion at Meenakshipuram.” In Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Vol. 39, No. 2, 2019.

Bayly, Susan. Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Bennett, Joshua. “A History of Rationalism in Victorian Britain.” Modern Intellectual History 15, no. 1 (2018): 63–91. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479244315000438.

Bose, Sugata and Ayesha Jalal. Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy. Second Edition. London: Routledge, 2004.

Budd, Susan. Varieties of Unbelief: Atheists and Agnostics in English Society 1850-1960. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd, 1977.

Burton, Antoinette M. Burdens of History: British Feminists, Indian Women, and Imperial Culture, 1865-1915. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1994.

196

Carson, Penelope. The East India Company and Religion 1698 – 1858. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2012.

Casanova, Jose. Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Chakrabarty, Dipesh. "Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History: Who Speaks for ‘Indian’ Pasts?" in Contemporary Postcolonial Theory: A Reader, Ed. Padmini Mongia. London: Arnold, 1996.

Chakravarti, Uma. “Whatever Happened to the Vedic Dasi?: Orientalism, Nationalism, and a Script for the Past.” in Kumkum Sangari and Sudesh Vaid, eds. Recasting Women: Essays in Indian Colonial History. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1990.

Chatterjee, Partha. The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Post-colonial Histories. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.

Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad. Indian Atheism: A Marxist Analysis. Calcutta: R.D. Press, 1969.

Cody, Francis. The Light of Knowledge: Literacy Activism and the Politics of Writing in South India. 1 ed., Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013., doi:10.1353/book.43595.

Cohn, Bernard S. An Anthropologist Among the Historians and Other Essays. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1987.

---- . Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.

Cooke, Bill. The Gathering of Infidels: A Hundred Years of the Rationalist Press Association. New York, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004.

Das Gupta, Jyotirindira. Language Conflict and National Development. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970.

Dickey, Sara. Cinema and the Urban Poor in South India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Dictionary of Contemporary Tamil (Tamil-Tamil-English) (埍�யாவ�ꟍ த쟍கால鏍 தமி폍 அகராதி). Chennai: Cre-A, 2005. 197

Diehl, Anita. Periyar E.V. Ramaswami: a study of the influence of a personality in contemporary South India. New Delhi: B.I. Publications, 1978.

Doniger, Wendy. The Hindus: An Alternative History. New York: Penguin Books, Ltd., 2009.

Durkheim, Emile, and Karen E. Fields. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York, NY: Free Press, 1995.

Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. New York, NY: Harcourt, 1959.

Forbes, Geraldine Hancock. Women in Modern India. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Frazier, Jessica. “Hinduism.” The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. Eds. Stephen Bullivant and Michael Ruse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Gannon, Shane. “Conversion as Thematic Site: Academic Representations of Ambedkar’s Buddhist Turn.” in Method and Theory in the Study of Religion. Vol. 23, 2011.

Geetha, V. "Periyar, Women and an Ethic of Citizenship." Economic and Political Weekly 33, no. 17 (1998): WS-9 - WS-15.

Geetha, V. and Rajadurai, E. V. Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium: from Iyothee Thass to Periyar. Mumbai: Samya, 1998.

Gellner, Ernest. “Nationalism.” In Theory and Society. Vol. 10. No. 6. Nov, 1981. pp. 753-776.

---- . Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983.

Guha, Ramachandra. The Makers of Modern India. Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011.

Guha, Ranajit. Dominance without Hegemony: History and Power in Colonial India. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Hadden, Jeffrey K. "Toward Desacralizing Secularization Theory." Social Forces 65, no. 3 (1987): 587-611.

198

Hardgrave, Robert L. Jr. Essays in the Political Sociology of South India. New Delhi: Manohar, 1979.

---- The Dravidian Movement. Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1965.

Hayes, Carlton Joseph Huntley. The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism. New York: R.R. Smith, inc., 1931.

Haynes, Jeff. "Religion, Secularisation and Politics: A Postmodern Conspectus." Third World Quarterly 18, no. 4 (1997): 709-28.

Hobsbawm, Eric and Terence Ranger. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Hodges, Sarah. “Revolutionary Family Life and the Self Respect Movement in Tamil South India, 1926-1949,” Contributions to Indian Sociology 39, no. 2 (2005): 251-77.

Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. 1st Touchstone ed. New York, NY: Touchstone, 1997.

Inden, Ronald. Imagining India. Cambridge, Mass.: Basil Blackwell, Inc., 1990.

Indian Census Data from 2001 census: http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_And_You/religion.aspx

Irschick, Eugene F. Dialogue and History: Constructing South India, 1795-1895. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.

---- . Politics and Social Conflict in South India: The Non-Brahman Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916-1929. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.

---- . Tamil Revivalism in the 1930’s. Madras: Crea-A, 1986.

Jaffrelot, Christophe. Dr. Ambedkar and Untouchability: fighting the Indian caste system. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.

James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature; Being the Gifford Lectures on Natural Religion Delivered at Edinburgh in 1901-1902. New York, NY: Modern Library, 1902.

199

Jayanth, Malarvizhi. “Literary Criticism as a Critique of Caste: Ayothee Thass and the Tamil Buddhist Past.” in The Journal of Commonwealth Literature. Vol. 54, No. 1, 2019.

Jeyaraman, Bala. Periyar: a political biography of E.V. Ramasamy. New Delhi: Rupa Publications, 2013.

Jones, Kenneth W. The New Cambridge History of India: Socio-religious reform movements in British India. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Kandasamy, Meena. “Translators Note,” Why Were Women Enslaved? E.V.R. Chennai: The Periyar Self Respect Propaganda Institution, 2007.

Kapadia, Karin. Siva and Her Sisters: Gender, Caste, and Class in Rural South India. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995.

King, Richard. Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory, India, and the “Mystic East.” New York, NY: Routledge, 1999.

Lakshmi, C.S. “Mother, Mother-Community and Mother-Politics in Tamil Nadu.” in Economic and Political Weekly. October 20-29, 1990. Vol. 25. Bombay: Sameeksha Trust.

Lee, Lois. Recognizing the Non-Religious: Reimagining the Secular. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Lloyd, Rudolph. “Urban Life and Populist Radicalism: Dravidian Politics in Madras.” in The Journal of Asian Studies. Vol. 20, No. 3. 1961.

Madan, T. N. “Secularism in Its Place,” The Journal of Asian Studies 46, no. 4 (Nov. 1987): 747-759.

Mani, Lata. "Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India," in Recasting Women: Essays in Indian Colonial History, edited by Kumkum Sangari and Sudesh Vaid, 88-126. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1990.

Masuzawa, Tomoko. The Invention of World Religions, or, How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2005.

200

McClintock, Anne. "'No Longer in a Future Heaven': Gender, Race and Nationalism," in Dangerous Liasons: Gender, Nation and Postcolonial Perspectives, edited by Anne McClintock and Aamir Mufti, 89-112. Minneapolis, Minn., 1997.

Metcalf, Barbara D. “Imagining Community: Polemical Debates in Colonial India” in Religious Controversy in British India: Dialogues in South Asian Languages. Edited by Kenneth W. Jones. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992.

Metcalf, Barbara D. and Thomas R. Metcalf. A Concise History of India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Metcalf, Thomas R. Ideologies of the Raj. in The New Cambridge History of India. Vol. III. Edited by Gordon Johnson. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Minault, Gail. Secluded Scholars: Women's Education and Muslim Social Reform in Colonial India. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Mines, Diane. Caste in India. Ann Arbor: Association for Asian Studies, 2009.

Mitchell, Lisa. Language, Emotion, and Politics in South India: The Making of a Mother Tongue. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009.

Mitra, Subrata. “Caste, Democracy and the Politics of Community Formation in India.” in Contextualizing Caste. Edited by Mary Searle-Chatterjee and Ursula Sharma. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers, 1994.

Muthiah, S. “The first Tamil newspapers,” in The Hindu, Sept. 25, 2017. https://www.thehindu.com/society/first-newspapers-of-tamil- nadu/article19751056.ece

Nambi Arooran, K. Tamil Renaissance and Dravidian Nationalism: 1905-1944. Madurai: Koodal Publishers, 1980.

Nandy, Ashis. The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Narayana Rao, K.V. The Emergence of Andhra Pradesh. Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1973.

Nicholson, Andrew J. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010.

201

Norris, Pippa, and Ronald Inglehart. Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Obituary of Thiru Vi. Kalyanasundaram. https://web.archive.org/web/20061103152430/http://www.hinduonnet.com/2003/ 09/19/stories/2003091900680900.htm

Oddie, Geoff A. “Anti-Missionary Feeling and Hindu Revivalism in Madras: The Hindu Preaching and Tract Societies, C. 1886-1891.” In Images of Man: Religion and Historical Process in South Asia. Edited by Fred W. Clothey. Madras: New Era Publications, 1982.

Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational. New York: Oxford University Press, 1958.

Pandian, M. S. S. Brahmin and Non-Brahmin: Genealogies of the Tamil Political Present. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2007.

---- . "'Denationalising' the Past: 'Nation' in E V Ramasamy's Political Discourse." Economic and Political Weekly 28, no. 42 (1993): 2282-87.

---- . "Notes on the Transformation of 'Dravidian' Ideology: Tamilnadu, C. 1900- 1940." Social Scientist 22, no. 5/6 (1994): 84-104. doi:10.2307/3517904.

Parpola, Asko. The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Periyar E.V. Ramasamy: A Biographical Sketch. Chennai: The Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institute, 2004.

Price, Pamela. “Revolution and Rank in Tamil Nationalism,” in The Journal of Asian Studies. Vol. 55, No. 2.

Quack, Johannes. 2012. Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

---- . “India” in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. Eds. Stephen Bullivant and Michael Ruse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

---- . “Outline of a Relational Approach to ‘Nonreligion’,” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 26, no. 4/5 (2014): 443-4.

202

Rajalakshmi, V. The Political Behaviour of Women in Tamil Nadu. New Delhi: Inter- India Publications, 1985.

Ramasami, E.V. Collected Works of Periyar E.V.R., ed. K. Veerasami. Chennai: Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institution, 2005.

---- . Periyar on Islam, trans. & intr. by G. Aloysius. New Delhi: Critical Quest, 2004.

---- . Periyar on Women’s Rights. K. Veeramani, Comp. R. Sundara Raju, Trans. Madras: Emerald Publishers, 1992.

Ramaswamy, Sumathi. Passions of the Tongue: Language Devotion in Tamil India, 1891-1970. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

---- . Lost Land of Lemuria: Fabulous Geographies, Catastrophic Histories. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.

Ramaswamy, Uma. “The Belief System of the Non-Brahmin Movement in India: The Andhra Case,” in Asian Survey. Vol. 18, No. 3 (Mar. 1978): 290-300.

Revolt: A Radical Weekly in Colonial Madras. Edited by V. Geetha and S.V. Rajadurai. Chennai: Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam, 2015. http://thanthaiperiyardk.org/kudiarasu/Revolt.pdf.

Roy, Arundhati. The Doctor and the Saint: Caste, Race, and the Annihilation of Caste: the debate between B.R. Ambedkar and M.K. Gandhi. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2017.

Rudolph, Lloyd, I. 1961. “Urban Life and Populist Radicalism: Dravidian Politics in Madras.” in The Journal of Asian Studies. Vol. 20, No. 3.

Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber. “Preface,” in T. N. Madan, “Secularism in Its Place,” The Journal of Asian Studies 46, no. 4 (Nov. 1987): 747-748.

Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1978.

Sangari, Kumkum and Sudesh Vaid. Recasting Women: Essays in Indian Colonial History. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1990.

Sarkar, Tanika. Hindu Wife, Hindu Nation: Community, Religion and Cultural Nationalism. London: Hurst & Company, 2001.

203

Sattanathan, A.N. The Dravidian Movement in Tamil Nadu and its Legacy. Madras: University of Madras, 1982.

Scheer, Monique, Birgitte Schepelern Johansen, and Nadia Fadil, “Secular Embodiments: Mapping an Emergent Field” in Secular Bodies, Affects, and Emotions: European configurations. Edited by Monique Scheer, Birgitte Schepelern Johansen, and Nadia Fadil. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019.

Schleiermacher, Friedrich. On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers, Library of Religion and Culture. New York, NY: Harper, 1958.

Schmitthenner, Peter L. Telugu Resurgence: C.P. Brown and Cultural Consolidation in Nineteenth-Century South India. New Delhi: Manohar, 2001.

Sen, Amartya P. “Introduction” in Social and Religious Reform: The Hindus of British India. Editor: Amartya P. Sen. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Seton-Wilson, Hugh. Nations and States: An Enquiry into the Origins of Nations and the Politics of Nationalism. Boulder: Westview Press, 1977.

Sharpe, Eric J. Comparative Religion: A History. New York, NY: Scribner's, 1975.

Sinha, Mrinalini. "Refashioning Mother India: Feminism and Nationalism in Late- Colonial India." Feminist Studies XXVI (2000): 623-44.

Smith, A.D. Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and Nationalisms. London: Routledge, 1998.

---- . “The Diffusion of Nationalism: Some Historical and Sociological Perspectives.” In The British Journal of Sociology. Vol. 29. No. 2. June, 1978. pp. 234-248.

Smith, Jonathan Z. Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. "Can the Subaltern Speak," in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. University of Illinois Press, 1988.

Sreenivas, Mytheli. Wives, Widows, and Concubines: The Conjugal Family Ideal in Colonial India. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008.

Srilata, K. The Other Half of the Coconut: Women Writing Self Respect History. New Delhi: Kali for Women, 2003.

204

Stark, Rodney. "Secularization, R.I.P." Sociology of Religion 60, no. 3 (1999): 249-73.

Strenski, Ivan. Thinking About Religion: An Historical Introduction to Theories of Religion. Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 2006.

Stroud, Scott. “The Rhetoric of Conversion as Emancipatory Strategy in India: Bhimrao Ambedkar, Pragmatism, and the Turn to Buddhism.” in Rhetorica, Vol. 35, Issue 3, 2017.

Subramanian, Narendra. Ethnicity and Populist Mobilization: Political Parties, Citizens, and Democracy in South India. Delhi; New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Sundararajan, Saroja. Madras Presidency in Pre-Gandhian Era: A Historical Perspective 1884-1915. Pondicherry: Lalitha Publications, 1997.

Tamil Lexicon. Madras: Diocesan Press, 1924-36. 6 vol; [3944 pp.]. Followed by: Supplement. 1938-9. 3 parts [423 pp.] Viewed via https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/tamil-lex/.

Taves, Ann. Fits, Trances, & Visions: Experiencing Religion and Explaining Experience from Wesley to James. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999.

Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2007.

Tejani, Shabnum. Indian Secularism: A Social and Intellectual History, 1890-1950. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2008.

Thapar, Romila. “Interpretations of Ancient Indian History.” In History and Theory, Vol. 7, No. 3. (1968), pp. 318-335.

Tharu, Susie J., and Ke Lalita. Women Writing in India: 600 B.C. To the Present. New York: Feminist Press at the City University of New York: Distributed by Talman Co., 1991.

Trautmann, Thomas R. Languages and Nations: The Dravidian Proof in Colonial Madras Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.

Turner, James. Without God, without Creed: The Origins of Unbelief in America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.

Tweed, Thomas A. Crossing and Dwelling: A Theory of Religion. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006.

205

Vaitheespara, Ravi, “Re-Inscribing Religion as Nation: Naveenar-Caivar (Modern Saivites) and the Dravidian Movement,” South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 35, no. 4: 767-786.

Van der Veer, Peter. Imperial Encounters: Religion and Modernity in Indian and Britain. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.

---- . Religious Nationalism: Hindus and Muslims in India. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.

Venkatachalapathy, A.R. “Dravidian Movement and Saivites” In Economic and Political Weekly. Vol. 30, No 14. (April 8, 1995) 761-768.

---- . “From Erode to Volga: Periyar EVR’s Soviet and European Tour, 1932,” in India and the World in the First Half of the Twentieth Century. M. Palat, ed. London: Routledge India, 2018. https://doi- org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/10.4324/9781351255325

---- . In Those Days There Was No Coffee: Writings in Cultural History. New Delhi: Yoda Press: Distributed by Foundation Books, 2006.

---- . Tamil Characters: Personalities, Politics, Culture. New Delhi: Pan Macmillan India, 2019. Accessed on a Kindle.

Visswanathan, E. Sa. The Political Career of E. V. Ramasami Naicker. Madras: Ravi & Vasanth Publishers, 1983.

Viswanathan, Gauri. Outside the Fold: Conversion, Modernity, and Belief. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.

Visweswaran, Kamala. “Small Speeches, Subaltern Gender: Nationalist Ideology and its Historiography.” in Shahid Amin and Dipesh Chakrabarty, eds. Subaltern Studies IX. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Washbrook, D. A. The Emergence of Provincial Politics: The Madras Presidency 1870- 1920. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Wavell: The Viceroy’s Journal. Edited by Penderel Moon. London: Oxford University Press, 1973.

White, Philip L. “Globalization and the Mythology of the ‘Nation State’”, in Global History: Interactions between the Universal and the Local. A.G. Hopkins, ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. 206

Whitehead, Alfred North. Religion in the Making. Cleveland, OH: The World Publishing Company, 1926.

Wohlrab-Sahr, Monika and Marian Burchardt. “Multiple Secularities: Toward a Cultural Sociology of Secular Modernities”, in Comparative Sociology. 11. (2012) 875- 909.

Yuval-Davis, Nira. Gender and Nation. London, 1997.

Interview between Robert Hardgrave and E.V.R., 1969. Personal archive.

207